{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_8489/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_8489","id":"gutenberg_8489","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8489","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 -- Interviews","Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1772-1834 -- Quotations","Critics -- Great Britain -- Interviews","England -- Intellectual life -- 19th century","Poetry -- Authorship","Poets, English -- 19th century -- Interviews","Quotations, English"],"text":"[The Greek transliterations throughout this file are either missing or\nvery suspect.]\n\n\n[Illustration: F. Finden sculp.\n_London, John Murray, Albernarle St. 1837_]\n\n[autographed:\nDear Sir,\nYour obliged servant.\nS. T. Coleridge]\n\nSPECIMENS\nOF THE\nTABLE TALK\nOF\nSAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE.\n\n\nTO\nJAMES GILLMAN, ESQUIRE,\nOF THE GROVE, HIGHGATE, AND TO\nMRS. GILLMAN,\nThis Volume IS GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is nearly fifteen years since I was, for the first time, enabled to\nbecome a frequent and attentive visitor in Mr. Coleridge's domestic\nsociety. His exhibition of intellectual power in living discourse struck me\nat once as unique and transcendant; and upon my return home, on the very\nfirst evening which I spent with him after my boyhood, I committed to\nwriting, as well as I could, the principal topics of his conversation in\nhis own words. I had no settled design at that time of continuing the work,\nbut simply made the note in something like a spirit of vexation that such a\nstrain of music as I had just heard, should not last forever. What I did\nonce, I was easily induced by the same feeling to do again; and when, after\nmany years of affectionate communion between us, the painful existence of\nmy revered relative on earth was at length finished in peace, my occasional\nnotes of what he had said in my presence had grown to a mass, of which this\nvolume contains only such parts as seem fit for present publication. I\nknow, better than any one can tell me, how inadequately these specimens\nrepresent the peculiar splendour and individuality of Mr. Coleridge's\nconversation. How should it be otherwise? Who could always follow to the\nturning-point his long arrow-flights of thought? Who could fix those\nejaculations of light, those tones of a prophet, which at times have made\nme bend before him as before an inspired man? Such acts of spirit as these\nwere too subtle to be fettered down on paper; they live--if they can live\nany where--in the memories alone of those who witnessed them. Yet I would\nfain hope that these pages will prove that all is not lost;--that something\nof the wisdom, the learning, and the eloquence of a great man's social\nconverse has been snatched from forgetfulness, and endowed with a permanent\nshape for general use. And although, in the judgment of many persons, I may\nincur a serious responsibility by this publication; I am, upon the whole,\nwilling to abide the result, in confidence that the fame of the loved and\nlamented speaker will lose nothing hereby, and that the cause of Truth and\nof Goodness will be every way a gainer. This sprig, though slight and\nimmature, may yet become its place, in the Poet's wreath of honour, among\nflowers of graver hue.\n\nIf the favour shown to several modern instances of works nominally of the\nsame description as the present were alone to be considered, it might seem\nthat the old maxim, that nothing ought to be said of the dead but what is\ngood, is in a fair way of being dilated into an understanding that every\nthing is good that has been said by the dead. The following pages do not, I\ntrust, stand in need of so much indulgence. Their contents may not, in\nevery particular passage, be of great intrinsic importance; but they can\nhardly be without some, and, I hope, a worthy, interest, as coming from the\nlips of one at least of the most extraordinary men of the age; whilst to\nthe best of my knowledge and intention, no living person's name is\nintroduced, whether for praise or for blame, except on literary or\npolitical grounds of common notoriety. Upon the justice of the remarks here\npublished, it would be out of place in me to say any thing; and a\ncommentary of that kind is the less needed, as, in almost every instance,\nthe principles upon which the speaker founded his observations are\nexpressly stated, and may be satisfactorily examined by themselves. But,\nfor the purpose of general elucidation, it seemed not improper to add a few\nnotes, and to make some quotations from Mr. Coleridge's own works; and in\ndoing so, I was in addition actuated by an earnest wish to call the\nattention of reflecting minds in general to the views of political, moral,\nand religious philosophy contained in those works, which, through an\nextensive, but now decreasing, prejudice, have hitherto been deprived of\nthat acceptance with the public which their great preponderating merits\ndeserve, and will, as I believe, finally obtain. And I can truly say, that\nif, in the course of the perusal of this little work, any one of its\nreaders shall gain a clearer insight into the deep and pregnant principles,\nin the light of which Mr. Coleridge was accustomed to regard God and the\nWorld,--I shall look upon the publication as fortunate, and consider myself\nabundantly rewarded for whatever trouble it has cost me.\n\nA cursory inspection will show that this volume lays no claim to be ranked\nwith those of Boswell in point of dramatic interest. Coleridge differed\nnot more from Johnson in every characteristic of intellect, than in the\nhabits and circumstances of his life, during the greatest part of the time\nin which I was intimately conversant with him. He was naturally very fond\nof society, and continued to be so to the last; but the almost unceasing\nill health with which he was afflicted, after fifty, confined him for many\nmonths in every year to his own room, and, most commonly, to his bed. He\nwas then rarely seen except by single visiters; and few of them would feel\nany disposition upon such occasions to interrupt him, whatever might have\nbeen the length or mood of his discourse. And indeed, although I have been\npresent in mixed company, where Mr. Coleridge has been questioned and\nopposed, and the scene has been amusing for the moment--I own that it was\nalways much more delightful to me to let the river wander at its own sweet\nwill, unruffled by aught but a certain breeze of emotion which the stream\nitself produced. If the course it took was not the shortest, it was\ngenerally the most beautiful; and what you saw by the way was as worthy of\nnote as the ultimate object to which you were journeying. It is possible,\nindeed, that Coleridge did not, in fact, possess the precise gladiatorial\npower of Johnson; yet he understood a sword-play of his own; and I have,\nupon several occasions, seen him exhibit brilliant proofs of its\neffectiveness upon disputants of considerable pretensions in their\nparticular lines. But he had a genuine dislike of the practice in himself\nor others, and no slight provocation could move him to any such exertion.\nHe was, indeed, to my observation, more distinguished from other great men\nof letters by his moral thirst after the Truth--the ideal truth--in his\nown mind, than by his merely intellectual qualifications. To leave the\neveryday circle of society, in which the literary and scientific rarely--\nthe rest never--break through the spell of personality;--where Anecdote\nreigns everlastingly paramount and exclusive, and the mildest attempt to\ngeneralize the Babel of facts, and to control temporary and individual\nphenomena by the application of eternal and overruling principles, is\nunintelligible to many, and disagreeable to more;--to leave this species\nof converse--if converse it deserves to be called--and pass an entire day\nwith Coleridge, was a marvellous change indeed. It was a Sabbath past\nexpression deep, and tranquil, and serene. You came to a man who had\ntravelled in many countries and in critical times; who had seen and felt\nthe world in most of its ranks and in many of its vicissitudes and\nweaknesses; one to whom all literature and genial art were absolutely\nsubject, and to whom, with a reasonable allowance as to technical details,\nall science was in a most extraordinary degree familiar. Throughout a\nlong-drawn summer's day would this man talk to you in low, equable, but\nclear and musical, tones, concerning things human and divine; marshalling\nall history, harmonizing all experiment, probing the depths of your\nconsciousness, and revealing visions of glory and of terror to the\nimagination; but pouring withal such floods of light upon the mind, that\nyou might, for a season, like Paul, become blind in the very act of\nconversion. And this he would do, without so much as one allusion to\nhimself, without a word of reflection on others, save when any given act\nfell naturally in the way of his discourse,--without one anecdote that was\nnot proof and illustration of a previous position;--gratifying no passion,\nindulging no caprice, but, with a calm mastery over your soul, leading you\nonward and onward for ever through a thousand windings, yet with no pause,\nto some magnificent point in which, as in a focus, all the party-coloured\nrays of his discourse should converge in light. In all this he was, in\ntruth, your teacher and guide; but in a little while you might forget that\nhe was other than a fellow student and the companion of your way,--so\nplayful was his manner, so simple his language, so affectionate the glance\nof his pleasant eye!\n\nThere were, indeed, some whom Coleridge tired, and some whom he sent\nasleep. It would occasionally so happen, when the abstruser mood was strong\nupon him, and the visiter was narrow and ungenial. I have seen him at times\nwhen you could not incarnate him,--when he shook aside your petty questions\nor doubts, and burst with some impatience through the obstacles of common\nconversation. Then, escaped from the flesh, he would soar upwards into an\natmosphere almost too rare to breathe, but which seemed proper to _him_,\nand there he would float at ease. Like enough, what Coleridge then said,\nhis subtlest listener would not understand as a man understands a\nnewspaper; but upon such a listener there would steal an influence, and an\nimpression, and a sympathy; there would be a gradual attempering of his\nbody and spirit, till his total being vibrated with one pulse alone, and\nthought became merged in contemplation;--\n\n  And so, his senses gradually wrapt\n  In a half sleep, he'd dream of better worlds,\n  And dreaming hear thee still, O singing lark,\n  That sangest like an angel in the clouds!\n\nBut it would be a great mistake to suppose that the general character of\nMr. Coleridge's conversation was abstruse or rhapsodical. The contents of\nthe following pages may, I think, be taken as pretty strong presumptive\nevidence that his ordinary manner was plain and direct enough; and even\nwhen, as sometimes happened, he seemed to ramble from the road, and to\nlose himself in a wilderness of digressions, the truth was, that at that\nvery time he was working out his fore-known conclusion through an almost\nmiraculous logic, the difficulty of which consisted precisely in the very\nfact of its minuteness and universality. He took so large a scope, that,\nif he was interrupted before he got to the end, he appeared to have been\ntalking without an object; although, perhaps, a few steps more would have\nbrought you to a point, a retrospect from which would show you the\npertinence of all he had been saying. I have heard persons complain that\nthey could get no answer to a question from Coleridge. The truth is, he\nanswered, or meant to answer, so fully that the querist should have no\nsecond question to ask. In nine cases out of ten he saw the question was\nshort or misdirected; and knew that a mere _yes_ or _no_ answer could not\nembrace the truth--that is, the whole truth--and might, very probably, by\nimplication, convey error. Hence that exhaustive, cyclical mode of\ndiscoursing in which he frequently indulged; unfit, indeed, for a dinner-\ntable, and too long-breathed for the patience of a chance visiter,--but\nwhich, to those who knew for what they came, was the object of their\nprofoundest admiration, as it was the source of their most valuable\ninstruction. Mr. Coleridge's affectionate disciples learned their lessons\nof philosophy and criticism from his own mouth. He was to them as an old\nmaster of the Academy or Lyceum. The more time he took, the better pleased\nwere such visiters; for they came expressly to listen, and had ample proof\nhow truly he had declared, that whatever difficulties he might feel, with\npen in hand, in the expression of his meaning, he never found the smallest\nhitch or impediment in the utterance of his most subtle reasonings by word\nof mouth. How many a time and oft have I felt his abtrusest thoughts steal\nrhythmically on my soul, when chanted forth by him! Nay, how often have I\nfancied I heard rise up in answer to his gentle touch, an interpreting\nmusic of my own, as from the passive strings of some wind-smitten lyre!\n\nMr. Coleridge's conversation at all times required attention, because what\nhe said was so individual and unexpected. But when he was dealing deeply\nwith a question, the demand upon the intellect of the hearer was very\ngreat; not so much for any hardness of language, for his diction was always\nsimple and easy; nor for the abstruseness of the thoughts, for they\ngenerally explained, or appeared to explain, themselves; but preeminently\non account of the seeming remoteness of his associations, and the exceeding\nsubtlety of his transitional links. Upon this point it is very happily,\nthough, according to my observation, too generally, remarked, by one whose\npowers and opportunities of judging were so eminent that the obliquity of\nhis testimony in other respects is the more unpardonable;--\"Coleridge, to\nmany people--and often I have heard the complaint--seemed to wander; and he\nseemed then to wander the most, when, in fact, his resistance to the\nwandering instinct was greatest,--viz. when the compass and huge circuit,\nby which his illustrations moved, travelled farthest into remote regions,\nbefore they began to revolve. Long before this coming round commenced, most\npeople had lost him, and naturally enough supposed that he had lost\nhimself. They continued to admire the separate beauty of the thoughts, but\ndid not see their relations to the dominant theme. * * * * However, I can\nassert, upon my long and intimate knowledge of Coleridge's mind, that logic\nthe most severe was as inalienable from his modes of thinking, as grammar\nfrom his language.\" [Footnote: Tait's Mag. Sept. 1834, p. 514.] True: his\nmind was a logic-vice; let him fasten it on the tiniest flourish of an\nerror, he never slacked his hold, till he had crushed body and tail to\ndust. He was _always_ ratiocinating in his own mind, and therefore\nsometimes seemed incoherent to the partial observer. It happened to him as\nto Pindar, who in modern days has been called a rambling rhapsodist,\nbecause the connections of his parts, though never arbitrary, are so fine\nthat the vulgar reader sees them not at all. But they are there\nnevertheless, and may all be so distinctly shown, that no one can doubt\ntheir existence; and a little study will also prove that the points of\ncontact are those which the true genius of lyric verse naturally evolved,\nand that the entire Pindaric ode, instead of being the loose and lawless\nout-burst which so many have fancied, is, without any exception, the most\nartificial and highly wrought composition which Time has spared to us from\nthe wreck of the Greek Muse. So I can well remember occasions, in which,\nafter listening to Mr. Coleridge for several delightful hours, I have gone\naway with divers splendid masses of reasoning in my head, the separate\nbeauty and coherency of which I deeply felt, but how they had produced, or\nhow they bore upon, each other, I could not then perceive. In such cases I\nhave mused sometimes even for days afterwards upon the words, till at\nlength, spontaneously as it seemed, \"the fire would kindle,\" and the\nassociation, which had escaped my utmost efforts of comprehension before,\nflash itself all at once upon my mind with the clearness of noon-day light.\n\nIt may well be imagined that a style of conversation so continuous and\ndiffused as that which I have just attempted to describe, presented\nremarkable difficulties to a mere reporter by memory. It is easy to\npreserve the pithy remark, the brilliant retort, or the pointed anecdote;\nthese stick of themselves, and their retention requires no effort of mind.\nBut where the salient angles are comparatively few, and the object of\nattention is a long-drawn subtle discoursing, you can never recollect,\nexcept by yourself thinking the argument over again. In so doing, the order\nand the characteristic expressions will for the most part spontaneously\narise; and it is scarcely credible with what degree of accuracy language\nmay thus be preserved, where practice has given some dexterity, and long\nfamiliarity with the speaker has enabled, or almost forced, you to catch\nthe outlines of his manner. Yet with all this, so peculiar were the flow\nand breadth of Mr. Coleridge's conversation, that I am very sensible how\nmuch those who can best judge will have to complain of my representation of\nit. The following specimens will, I fear, seem too fragmentary, and\ntherefore deficient in one of the most distinguishing properties of that\nwhich they are designed to represent; and this is true. Yet the reader will\nin most instances have little difficulty in understanding the course which\nthe conversation took, although my recollections of it are thrown into\nseparate paragraphs for the sake of superior precision. As I never\nattempted to give dialogue--indeed, there was seldom much dialogue to give\n--the great point with me was to condense what I could remember on each\nparticular topic into intelligible _wholes_ with as little injury to the\nliving manner and diction as was possible. With this explanation, I must\nleave it to those who still have the tones of \"that old man eloquent\"\nringing in their ears, to say how far I have succeeded in this delicate\nenterprise of stamping his winged words with perpetuity.\n\nIn reviewing the contents of the following pages, I can clearly see that I\nhave admitted some passages which will be pronounced illiberal by those\nwho, in the present day, emphatically call themselves liberal--_the_\nliberal. I allude of course to Mr. Coleridge's remarks on the Reform Bill\nand the Malthusian economists. The omission of such passages would probably\nhave rendered this publication more generally agreeable, and my disposition\ndoes not lead me to give gratuitous offence to any one. But the opinions of\nMr. Coleridge on these subjects, however imperfectly expressed by me, were\ndeliberately entertained by him; and to have omitted, in so miscellaneous a\ncollection as this, what he was well known to have said, would have argued\nin me a disapprobation or a fear, which I disclaim. A few words, however,\nmay be pertinently employed here in explaining the true bearing of\nColeridge's mind on the politics of our modern days. He was neither a Whig\nnor a Tory, as those designations are usually understood; well enough\nknowing that, for the most part, half-truths only are involved in the\nParliamentary tenets of one party or the other. In the common struggles of\na session, therefore, he took little interest; and as to mere personal\nsympathies, the friend of Frere and of Poole, the respected guest of\nCanning and of Lord Lansdowne, could have nothing to choose. But he threw\nthe weight of his opinion--and it was considerable--into the Tory or\nConservative scale, for these two reasons:--First, generally, because he\nhad a deep conviction that the cause of freedom and of truth is now\nseriously menaced by a democratical spirit, growing more and more rabid\nevery day, and giving no doubtful promise of the tyranny to come; and\nsecondly, in particular, because the national Church was to him the ark of\nthe covenant of his beloved country, and he saw the Whigs about to coalesce\nwith those whose avowed principles lead them to lay the hand of spoliation\nupon it. Add to these two grounds, some relics of the indignation which the\nefforts of the Whigs to thwart the generous exertions of England in the\ngreat Spanish war had formerly roused within him; and all the constituents\nof any active feeling in Mr. Coleridge's mind upon matters of state are, I\nbelieve, fairly laid before the reader. The Reform question in itself gave\nhim little concern, except as he foresaw the present attack on the Church\nto be the immediate consequence of the passing of the Bill; \"for let the\nform of the House of Commons,\" said he, \"be what it may, it will be, for\nbetter or for worse, pretty much what the country at large is; but once\ninvade that truly national and essentially popular institution, the Church,\nand divert its funds to the relief or aid of individual charity or public\ntaxation--how specious soever that pretext may be--and you will never\nthereafter recover the lost means of perpetual cultivation. Give back to\nthe Church what the nation originally consecrated to its use, and it ought\nthen to be charged with the education of the people; but half of the\noriginal revenue has been already taken by force from her, or lost to her\nthrough desuetude, legal decision, or public opinion; and are those whose\nvery houses and parks are part and parcel of what the nation designed for\nthe general purposes of the Clergy, to be heard, when they argue for making\nthe Church support, out of her diminished revenues, institutions, the\nintended means for maintaining which they themselves hold under the\nsanction of legal robbery?\" Upon this subject Mr. Coleridge did indeed feel\nvery warmly, and was accustomed to express himself accordingly. It weighed\nupon his mind night and day, and he spoke upon it with an emotion, which I\nnever saw him betray upon any topic of common politics, however decided his\nopinion might be. In this, therefore, he was _felix opportunitate mortis;\nnon enim vidit_----; and the just and honest of all parties will heartily\nadmit over his grave, that as his principles and opinions were untainted by\nany sordid interest, so he maintained them in the purest spirit of a\nreflective patriotism, without spleen, or bitterness, or breach of social\nunion.\n\nIt would require a rare pen to do justice to the constitution of\nColeridge's mind. It was too deep, subtle, and peculiar, to be fathomed by\na morning visiter. Few persons knew much of it in any thing below the\nsurface; scarcely three or four ever got to understand it in all its\nmarvellous completeness. Mere personal familiarity with this extraordinary\nman did not put you in possession of him; his pursuits and aspirations,\nthough in their mighty range presenting points of contact and sympathy for\nall, transcended in their ultimate reach the extremest limits of most men's\nimaginations. For the last thirty years of his life, at least, Coleridge\nwas really and truly a philosopher of the antique cast. He had his esoteric\nviews; and all his prose works from the \"Friend\" to the \"Church and State\"\nwere little more than feelers, pioneers, disciplinants for the last and\ncomplete exposition of them. Of the art of making hooks he knew little, and\ncared less; but had he been as much an adept in it as a modern novelist, he\nnever could have succeeded in rendering popular or even tolerable, at\nfirst, his attempt to push Locke and Paley from their common throne in\nEngland. A little more working in the trenches might have brought him\ncloser to the walls with less personal damage; but it is better for\nChristian philosophy as it is, though the assailant was sacrificed in the\nbold and artless attack. Mr. Coleridge's prose works had so very limited a\nsale, that although published in a technical sense, they could scarcely be\nsaid to have ever become _publici juris_. He did not think them such\nhimself, with the exception, perhaps, of the \"Aids to Reflection,\" and\ngenerally made a particular remark if he met any person who professed or\nshowed that he had read the \"Friend\" or any of his other books. And I have\nno doubt that had he lived to complete his great work on \"Philosophy\nreconciled with Christian Religion,\" he would without scruple have used in\nthat work any part or parts of his preliminary treatises, as their\nintrinsic fitness required. Hence in every one of his prose writings there\nare repetitions, either literal or substantial, of passages to be found in\nsome others of those writings; and there are several particular positions\nand reasonings, which he considered of vital importance, reiterated in the\n\"Friend,\" the \"Literary Life,\" the \"Lay Sermons,\" the \"Aids to Reflection,\"\nand the \"Church and State.\" He was always deepening and widening the\nfoundation, and cared not how often he used the same stone. In thinking\npassionately of the principle, he forgot the authorship--and sowed beside\nmany waters, if peradventure some chance seedling might take root and bear\nfruit to the glory of God and the spiritualization of Man.\n\nHis mere reading was immense, and the quality and direction of much of it\nwell considered, almost unique in this age of the world. He had gone\nthrough most of the Fathers, and, I believe, all the Schoolmen of any\neminence; whilst his familiarity with all the more common departments of\nliterature in every language is notorious. The early age at which some of\nthese acquisitions were made, and his ardent self-abandonment in the\nstrange pursuit, might, according to a common notion, have seemed adverse\nto increase and maturity of power in after life: yet it was not so; he\nlost, indeed, for ever the chance of being a popular writer; but Lamb's\n_inspired charity-boy_ of twelve years of age continued to his dying day,\nwhen sixty-two, the eloquent centre of all companies, and the standard of\nintellectual greatness to hundreds of affectionate disciples far and near.\nHad Coleridge been master of his genius, and not, alas! mastered by it;--\nhad he less romantically fought a single-handed fight against the whole\nprejudices of his age, nor so mercilessly racked his fine powers on the\nproblem of a universal Christian philosophy,--he might have easily won all\nthat a reading public can give to a favourite, and have left a name--not\ngreater nor more enduring indeed--but--better known, and more prized, than\nnow it is, amongst the wise, the gentle, and the good, throughout all ranks\nof society. Nevertheless, desultory as his labours, fragmentary as his\nproductions at present may seem to the cursory observer--my undoubting\nbelief is, that in the end it will be found that Coleridge did, in his\nvocation, the day's work of a giant. He has been melted into the very heart\nof the rising literatures of England and America; and the principles he has\ntaught are the master-light of the moral and intellectual being of men,\nwho, if they shall fail to save, will assuredly illustrate and condemn, the\nage in which they live. As it is, they 'bide their time.\n\nColeridge himself--blessings on his gentle memory!--Coleridge was a frail\nmortal. He had indeed his peculiar weaknesses as well as his unique powers;\nsensibilities that an averted look would rack, a heart which would have\nbeaten calmly in the tremblings of an earthquake. He shrank from mere\nuneasiness like a child, and bore the preparatory agonies of his death-\nattack like a martyr. Sinned against a thousand times more than sinning, he\nhimself suffered an almost life-long punishment for his errors, whilst the\nworld at large has the unwithering fruits of his labours, his genius, and\nhis sacrifice. _Necesse est tanquam immaturam mortem ejus defleam; si tamen\nfas est aut flere, aut omnino mortem vocare, qua tanti viri mortalitas\nmagis finita quam vita est. Vivit enim, vivetque semper, atque etiam latius\nin memoria hominum et sermone versabitur, postquam ab oculis recessit._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSamuel Taylor Coleridge was the youngest child of the Reverend John\nColeridge, Vicar of the Parish of Ottery St. Mary, in the county of Devon,\nand master of Henry the Eighth's Free Grammar School in that town. His\nmother's maiden name was Ann Bowdon. He was born at Ottery on the 21st of\nOctober, 1772, \"about eleven o'clock in the forenoon,\" as his father the\nvicar has, with rather a curious particularity, entered it in the register.\n\nHe died on the 25th of July, 1834, in Mr. Gillman's house, in the Grove,\nHighgate, and is buried in the old church-yard, by the road side.\n\n  [Greek: ----]\n\nH. N. C.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCharacter of Othello\nSchiller's Robbers\nShakspeare\nScotch Novels\nLord Byron\nJohn Kemble\nMathews\nParliamentary Privilege\nPermanency and Progression of Nations\nKant's Races of Mankind\nMaterialism\nGhosts\nCharacter of the Age for Logic\nPlato and Xenophon\nGreek Drama\nKotzebue\nBurke\nSt. John's Gospel\nChristianity\nEpistle to the Hebrews\nThe Logos\nReason and Understanding\nKean\nSir James Mackintosh\nSir H. Davy\nRobert Smith\nCanning\nNational Debt\nPoor Laws\nConduct of the Whigs\nReform of the House of Commons\nChurch of Rome\nZendavesta\nPantheism and Idolatry\nDifference between Stories of Dreams and Ghosts\nPhantom Portrait\nWitch of Endor\nSocinianism\nPlato and Xenophon\nReligions of the Greeks\nEgyptian Antiquities\nMilton\nVirgil\nGranville Penn and the Deluge\nRainbow\nEnglish and Greek Dancing\nGreek Acoustics\nLord Byron's Versification and Don Juan\nParental Control in Marriage\nMarriage of Cousins\nDifferences of Character\nBlumenbach and Kant's Races\nIapetic and Semitic\nHebrew\nSolomon\nJewish History\nSpinozistic and Hebrew Schemes\nRoman Catholics\nEnergy of Man and other Animals\nShakspeare _in minimis_\nPaul Sarpi\nBartram's Travels\nThe Understanding\nParts of Speech\nGrammar\nMagnetism\nElectricity\nGalvanism\nSpenser\nCharacter of Othello\nHamlet\nPolonius\nPrinciples and Maxims\nLove\nMeasure for Measure\nBen Jonson\nBeaumont and Fletcher\nVersion of the Bible\nCraniology\nSpurzheim\nBull and Waterland\nThe Trinity\nScale of Animal Being\nPopedom\nScanderbeg\nThomas \u00e0 Becket\nPure Ages of Greek, Italian, and English\nLuther\nBaxter\nAlgernon Sidney's Style\nAriosto and Tasso\nProse and Poetry\nThe Fathers\nRhenferd\nJacob Behmen\nNon-perception of Colours\nRestoration\nReformation\nWilliam III.\nBerkeley\nSpinosa\nGenius\nEnvy\nLove\nJeremy Taylor\nHooker\nIdeas\nKnowledge\nPainting\nProphecies of the Old Testament\nMessiah\nJews\nThe Trinity\nConversion of the Jews\nJews in Poland\nMosaic Miracles\nPantheism\nPoetic Promise\nNominalists and Realists\nBritish Schoolmen\nSpinosa\nFall of Man\nMadness\nBrown and Darwin\nNitrous Oxide\nPlants\nInsects\nMen\nDog\nAnt and Bee\nBlack, Colonel\nHolland and the Dutch\nReligion Gentilizes\nWomen and Men\nBiblical Commentators\nWalkerite Creed\nHorne Tooke\nDiversions of Purley\nGender of the Sun in German\nHorne Tooke\nJacobins\nPersian and Arabic Poetry\nMilesian Tales\nSir T. Monro\nSir S. Raffles\nCanning\nShakspeare\nMilton\nHomer\nReason and Understanding\nWords and Names of Things\nThe Trinity\nIrving\nAbraham\nIsaac\nJacob\nOrigin of Acts\nLove\nLord Eldon's Doctrine as to Grammar Schools\nDemocracy\nThe Eucharist\nSt. John, xix. 11.\nDivinity of Christ\nGenuineness of Books of Moses\nMosaic Prophecies\nTalent and Genius\nMotives and Impulses\nConstitutional and functional Life\nHysteria\nHydro-carbonic Gas\nBitters and Tonics\nSpecific Medicines\nEpistles to the Ephesians and Colossians\nOaths\nFlogging\nEloquence of Abuse\nThe Americans\nBook of Job\nTranslation of the Psalms\nAncient Mariner\nUndine\nMartin\nPilgrim's Progress\nPrayer\nChurch-singing\nHooker\nDreams\nJeremy Taylor\nEnglish Reformation\nCatholicity\nGnosis\nTertullian\nSt. John\nPrinciples of a Review\nParty Spirit\nSouthey's Life of Bunyan\nLaud\nPuritans and Cavaliers\nPresbyterians, Independents, and Bishops\nStudy of the Bible\nRabelais\nSwift\nBentley\nBurnet\nGiotto\nPainting\nSeneca\nPlato\nAristotle\nDuke of Wellington\nMonied Interest\nCanning\nBourrienne\nJews\nThe Papacy and the Reformation\nLeo X.\nThelwall\nSwift\nStella\nIniquitous Legislation\nSpurzheim and Craniology\nFrench Revolution, 1830\nCaptain B. Hall and the Americans\nEnglish Reformation\nDemocracy\nIdea of a State\nChurch\nGovernment\nFrench Gendarmerie\nPhilosophy of young Men at the present Day\nThucydides and Tacitus\nPoetry\nModern Metre\nLogic\nVarro\nSocrates\nGreek Philosophy\nPlotinus\nTertullian\nScotch and English Lakes\nLove and Friendship opposed\nMarriage\nCharacterlessness of Women\nMental Anarchy\nEar and Taste for Music different\nEnglish Liturgy\nBelgian Revolution\nGalileo, Newton, Kepler, Bacon\nThe Reformation\nHouse of Commons\nGovernment\nEarl Grey\nGovernment\nPopular Representation\nNapier\nBuonaparte\nSouthey\nPatronage of the Fine Arts\nOld Women\nPictures\nChillingworth\nSuperstition of Maltese, Sicilians, and Italians\nAsgill\nThe French\nThe Good and the True\nRomish Religion\nEngland and Holland\nIron\nGalvanism\nHeat\nNational Colonial Character, and Naval Discipline\nEngland\nHolland and Belgium\nGreatest Happiness Principle\nHobbism\nThe Two Modes of Political Action\nTruths and Maxims\nDrayton and Daniel\nMr. Coleridge's System of Philosophy\nKeenness and Subtlety\nDuties and Needs of an Advocate\nAbolition of the French Hereditary Peerage\nConduct of Ministers on the Reform Bill\nReligion\nUnion with Ireland\nIrish Church\nA State\nPersons and Things\nHistory\nBeauty\nGenius\nChurch\nState\nDissenters\nGracefulness of Children\nDogs\nIdeal Tory and Whig\nThe Church\nMinisters and the Reform Bill\nDisfranchisement\nGenius feminine\nPirates\nAstrology\nAlchemy\nReform Bill\nCrisis\nJohn, Chap. III. Ver. 4.\nDictation and Inspiration\nGnosis\nNew Testament Canon\nUnitarianism--Moral Philosophy\nMoral Law of Polarity\nEpidemic Disease\nQuarantine\nHarmony\nIntellectual Revolutions\nModern Style\nGenius of the Spanish and Italians\nVico\nSpinosa\nColours\nDestruction of Jerusalem\nEpic Poem\nVox Populi Vox Dei\nBlack\nAsgill and Defoe\nHorne Tooke\nFox and Pitt\nHorner\nAdiaphori\nCitizens and Christians\nProfessor Park\nEnglish Constitution\nDemocracy\nMilton and Sidney\nDe Vi Minimorum\nHahnemann\nLuther\nSympathy of old Greek and Latin with English\nRoman Mind\nWar\nCharm for Cramp\nGreek\nDual, neuter pleural *sic*, and verb singular\nTheta\nTalented\nHomer\nValcknaer\nPrinciples and Facts\nSchmidt\nPuritans and Jacobins\nWordsworth\nFrench Revolution\nInfant Schools\nMr. Coleridge's Philosophy\nSublimity\nSolomon\nMadness\nC. Lamb\nFaith and Belief\nDobrizhoffer\nScotch and English\nCriterion of Genius\nDryden and Pope\nMilton's disregard of Painting\nBaptismal Service\nJews' Division of the Scripture\nSanskrit\nHesiod\nVirgil\nGenius Metaphysical\nDon Quixote\nSteinmetz\nKeats\nChrist's Hospital\nBowyer\nSt. Paul's Melita\nEnglish and German\nBest State of Society\nGreat Minds Androgynous\nPhilosopher's Ordinary Language\nJuries\nBarristers' and Physicians' Fees\nQuacks\nC\u00e6sarean Operation\nInherited Disease\nMason's Poetry\nNorthern and Southern States of the American Union\nAll and the Whole\nNinth Article\nSin and Sins\nOld Divines\nPreaching extempore\nChurch of England\nUnion with Ireland\nFaust\nMichael Scott, Goethe, Schiller, and Wordsworth\nBeaumont and Fletcher\nBen Jonson\nMassinger\nHouse of Commons appointing the officers of the Army and Navy\nPenal Code in Ireland\nChurchmen\nCoronation Oaths\nDivinity\nProfessions and Trades\nModern Political Economy\nNational Debt\nProperty Tax\nDuty of Landholders\nMassinger\nShakspeare\nHieronimo\nLove's Labour Lost\nGifford's Massinger\nShakspeare\nThe Old Dramatists\nStatesmen\nBurke\nProspect of Monarchy or Democracy\nThe Reformed House of Commons\nUnited States of America\nCaptain B. Hall\nNorthern and Southern States\nDemocracy with Slavery\nQuakers\nLand and Money\nMethods of Investigation\nChurch of Rome\nCelibacy of the Clergy\nRoman Conquest of Italy\nWedded Love in Shakspeare and his Contemporary Dramatists\nTennyson's Poems\nRabelais and Luther\nWit and Madness\nColonization\nMachinery\nCapital\nRoman Conquest\nConstantine\nPapacy and the Schoolmen\nCivil War of the Seventeenth Century\nHampden's Speech\nReformed House of Commons\nFood\nMedicine\nPoison\nObstruction\nWilson\nShakspeare's Sonnets\nWickliffe\nLove\nLuther\nReverence for Ideal Truths\nJohnson the Whig\nAsgill\nJames I.\nSir P. Sidney\nThings are finding their Level\nGerman\nGoethe\nGod's Providence\nMan's Freedom\nDom Miguel and Dom Pedro\nWorking to better one's condition\nNegro Emancipation\nFox and Pitt\nRevolution\nVirtue and Liberty\nEpistle to the Romans\nErasmus\nLuther\nNegro Emancipation\nHackett's Life of Archbishop Williams\nCharles I.\nManners under Edward III. Richard II. and Henry VIII.\nHypothesis\nSuffiction\nTheory\nLyell's Geology\nGothic Architecture\nGerard's Douw's \"Schoolmaster\" and Titian's \"Venus\"\nSir J. Scarlett\nMandeville's Fable of the Bees\nBestial Theory\nCharacter of Bertram\nBeaumont and Fletcher's Dramas\nAeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides\nMilton\nStyle\nCavalier Slang\nJunius\nProse and Verse\nImitation and Copy\nDr. Johnson\nBoswell\nBurke\nNewton\nMilton\nPainting\nMusic\nPoetry\nPublic Schools\nScott and Coleridge\nNervous Weakness\nHooker and Bull\nFaith\nQuakers\nPhilanthropists\nJews\nSallust\nThucydides\nHerodotus\nGibbon\nKey to the Decline of the Roman Empire\nDr. Johnson's Political Pamphlets\nTaxation\nDirect Representation\nUniversal Suffrage\nRight of Women to vote\nHorne Tooke\nEtymology of the final _Ive_\n\"The Lord\" in the English Version of the Psalms, etc.\nScotch Kirk and Irving\nMilton's Egotism\nClaudian\nSterne\nHumour and Genius\nGreat Poets good Men\nDiction of the Old and New Testament Version\nHebrew\nVowels and Consonants\nGreek Accent and Quantity\nConsolation in Distress\nMock Evangelicals\nAutumn Day\nRosetti on Dante\nLaughter: Farce and Tragedy\nBaron Von Humboldt\nModern Diplomatists\nMan cannot be stationary\nFatalism and Providence\nCharacteristic Temperament of Nations\nGreek Particles\nLatin Compounds\nPropertius\nTibullus\nLucan\nStatius\nValerius Flaccus\nClaudian\nPersius\nPrudentius\nHermesianax\nDestruction of Jerusalem\nEpic Poem\nGerman and English\nParadise Lost\nModern Travels\nThe Trinity\nIncarnation\nRedemption\nEducation\nElegy\nLavacrum Pallados\nGreek and Latin Pentameter\nMilton's Latin Poems\nPoetical Filter\nGray and Cotton\nHomeric Heroes in Shakspeare\nDryden\nDr. Johnson\nScott's Novels\nScope of Christianity\nTimes of Charles I.\nMessenger of the Covenant\nProphecy\nLogic of Ideas and of Syllogisms\nW. S. Lander's Poetry\nBeauty\nChronological Arrangement of Works\nToleration\nNorwegians\nArticles of Faith\nModern Quakerism\nDevotional Spirit\nSectarianism\nOrigen\nSome Men like Musical Glasses\nSublime and Nonsense\nAtheist\nProof of Existence of God\nKant's attempt\nPlurality of Worlds\nA Reasoner\nShakspeare's Intellectual Action\nCrabbe and Southey\nPeter Simple and Tom Cringle's Log\nChaucer\nShakspeare\nBen Jonson\nBeaumont and Fletcher\nDaniel\nMassinger\nLord Byron and H. Walpole's \"Mysterious Mother\"\nLewis's Jamaica Journal\nSicily\nMalta\nSir Alexander Ball\nCambridge Petition to admit Dissenters\nCorn Laws\nChristian Sabbath\nHigh Prizes and Revenues of the Church\nSir Charles Wetherell's Speech\nNational Church\nDissenters\nPapacy\nUniversities\nSchiller's Versification\nGerman Blank Verse\nRoman Catholic Emancipation\nDuke of Wellington\nCoronation Oath\nCorn Laws\nModern Political Economy\nSocinianism\nUnitarianism\nFancy and Imagination\nMr. Coleridge's System\nBiographia Literaria\nDissenters\nLord Brooke\nBarrow and Dryden\nPeter Wilkins and Stothard\nFielding and Richardson\nBishop Sandford\nRoman Catholic Religion\nEuthanasia\nRecollections, by Mr. Justice Coleridge\nAddress to a God-child\n\n\n\n\nTABLE TALK\n\n\nDecember 29, 1822\n\nCHARACTER OF OTHELLO--SCHILLER'S ROBBERS-SHAKSPEARE\n--SCOTCH NOVELS--LORD BYRON--JOHN KEMMBLE--MATHEWS\n\nOthello must not be conceived as a negro, but a high and chivalrous Moorish\nchief.  Shakspeare learned the sprit of the character from the Spanish\npoetry, which was prevalent in England in his time.[1]\n\nJelousy does not strike me as the point in his passion; I take it to be\nrather an agony that the creature, whom he had believed angelic, with whom\nhe had garnered up his heart, and whom he could not help still loving,\nshould be proved impure and worthless.  It was the struggle  _not_ to\nlove her.  It was a moral indignation and regret that virture should so\nfall:--\"But yet the _pity_ of it, Iago!--O Iago! the _pity_ of it,\nIago!\"  In addition to this, his hourour was concerned: Iago would not have\nsucceeded but by hinting that this honour was compromised.  There is no\nferocity in Othello; his mind is majestic and composed.  He deliberately\ndetermines to die; and speaks his last speech with a view of showing his\nattachment to the Venetian state, though it had superseded him.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n  Caballaeros Granadinos,\n  Aunque Moros, hijos d'algo--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSchiller has the material Sublime; to produce an effect he sets you a\nwhole town on fire, and throws infants with their mothers into the flames,\nor locks up a father in an old tower.[1] But Shakspeare drops a\nhandkerchief, and the same or greater effects follow.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis expression--\"material sublime\"--like a hundred others\nwhich have slipped into general use, came originally from Mr. Coleridege,\nand was by him, in the first instatnce, applied to Schiller's Robbers--\nSee Act iv, sc. 5.--ED.]\n\n\nLear is the most tremendous effort of Shakspeare as a poet; Hamlet as a\nphilosopher or meditater; and Othello is the union of the two. There is\nsomething gigantic and unformed in the former two; but in the latter, every\nthing assumes its due place and proportion, and the whole mature powers of\nhis mind are displayed in admirable equilibrium.\n\nI think Old Mortality and Guy Mannering the best of the Scotch novels.\n\nIt seems, to my ear, that there is a sad want of harmony in Lord Byron's\nverses. Is it not unnatural to be always connecting very great intellectual\npower with utter depravity? Does such a combination often really exist in\nrerum naturae?\n\nI always had a great liking--I may say, a sort of nondescript reverence--\nfor John Kemble. What a quaint creature he was! I remember a party, in\nwhich he was discoursing in his measured manner after dinner, when the\nservant announced his carriage. He nodded, and went on. The announcement\ntook place twice afterwards; Kemble each time nodding his head a little\nmore impatiently, but still going on. At last, and for the fourth time, the\nservant entered, and said,--\"Mrs. Kemble says, sir, she has the\nrheumat_ise_, and cannot stay.\" \"Add_ism!_\" dropped John, in a\nparenthesis, and proceeded quietly in his harangue.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nKemble would correct any body, at any time, and in any place. Dear Charles\nMathews--a true genius in his line, in my judgment--told me he was once\nperforming privately before the King. The King was much pleased with the\nimitation of Kemble, and said,--\"I liked Kemble very much. He was one of my\nearliest friends. I remember once he was talking, and found himself out of\nsnuff. I offered him my box. He declined taking any--'he, a poor actor,\ncould not put his fingers into a royal box.' I said, 'Take some, pray; you\nwill obl_ee_ge me.' Upon which Kemble replied,--'It would become your royal\nmouth better to say, obl_i_ge me;' and took a pinch.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is not easy to put me out of countenance, or interrupt the feeling of\nthe time by mere external noise or circumstance; yet once I was thoroughly\n_done up_, as you would say. I was reciting, at a particular house, the\n\"Remorse;\" and was in the midst of Alhadra's description of the death of\nher husband, [1] when a scrubby boy, with a shining face set in dirt, burst\nopen the door and cried out,--\"Please, ma'am, master says, Will you ha'; or\nwill you _not_ ha', the pin-round?\"\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\n  \"ALHADRA. This night your chieftain arm'd himself,\nAnd hurried from me. But I follow'd him\nAt distance, till I saw him enter _there_!\n\n  NAOMI. The cavern?\n\n  ALHADRA. Yes, the mouth of yonder cavern.\nAfter a while I saw the son of Valdez\nRush by with flaring torch: he likewise enter'd.\nThere was another and a longer pause;\nAnd once, methought, I heard the clash of swords!\nAnd soon the son of Valdez re-appear'd:\nHe flung his torch towards the moon in sport,\nAnd seem'd as he were mirthful! I stood listening,\nImpatient for the footsteps of my husband.\n\n  NAOMI. Thou calledst him?\n\n  ALHADRA. I crept into the cavern--\n'Twas dark and very silent. What saidst thou?\nNo! No! I did not dare call Isidore,\nLest I should hear no answer! A brief while,\nBelike, I lost all thought and memory\nOf that for which I came! After that pause,\nO Heaven! I heard a groan, and follow'd it;\nAnd yet another groan, which guided me\nInto a strange recess--and there was light,\nA hideous light! his torch lay on the ground;\nIts flame burnt dimly o'er a chasm's brink:\nI spake; and whilst I spake, a feeble groan\nCame from that chasm! it was his last--his death-groan!\n\n  NAOMI. Comfort her, Allah!\n\n  ALHADRA. I stood in unimaginable trance\nAnd agony that cannot be remember'd,\nListening with horrid hope to hear a groan!\nBut I had heard his last;--my husband's death-groan!\n\n  NAOMI. Haste! let us onward!\n\n  ALHADRA. I look'd far down the pit--\nMy sight was bounded by a jutting fragment;\nAnd it was stain'd with blood. Then first I shriek'd;\nMy eyeballs burnt, my brain grew hot as fire,\nAnd all the hanging drops of the wet roof\nTurn'd into blood--I saw them turn to blood!\nAnd I was leaping wildly down the chasm,\nWhen on the further brink I saw his sword,\nAnd it said, Vengeance!--Curses on my tongue!\nThe moon hath moved in heaven, and I am here,\nAnd he hath not had vengeance!--Isidore!\nSpirit of Isidore, thy murderer lives!\nAway, away!\"--Act iv. sc. 3.]\n\n\n\n_January_ 1. 1823.\n\nPARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.---PERMANENCY AND PROGRESSION OF NATIONS.--KANT'S\nRACES OF MANKIND.\n\nPrivilege is a substitution for Law, where, from the nature of the\ncircumstances, a law cannot act without clashing with greater and more\ngeneral principles. The House of Commons must, of course, have the power of\ntaking cognizance of offences against its own rights. Sir Francis Burdett\nmight have been properly sent to the Tower for the speech he made in the\nHouse [1]; but when afterwards he published it in Cobbett, and they took\ncognizance of it as a breach of privilege, they violated the plain\ndistinction between privilege and law.\n\nAs a speech in the House, the House could alone animadvert upon it,\nconsistently with the effective preservation of its most necessary\nprerogative of freedom of debate; but when that speech became a book, then\nthe law was to look to it; and there being a law of libel, commensurate\nwith every possible object of attack in the state, privilege, which acts,\nor ought to act, only as a substitute for other laws, could have nothing to\ndo with it. I have heard that one distinguished individual said,--\"That he,\nfor one, would not shrink from affirming, that if the House of Commons\nchose to _burn_ one of their own members in Palace Yard, it had an inherent\npower and right by the constitution to do so.\" This was said, if at all, by\na moderate-minded man; and may show to what atrocious tyranny some persons\nmay advance in theory, under shadow of this word privilege.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMarch 12. 1810. Sir Francis Burdett made a motion in the House of\nCommons for the discharge of Mr. Gale Jones, who had been committed to\nNewgate by a resolution of the House on the 21st of February preceding.\nSir Francis afterwards published, in Cobbett's Political Register, of the\n24th of the same month of March, a \"Letter to his Constituents, denying\nthe power of the House of Commons to imprison the people of England,\"\nand he accompanied the letter with an argument in support of his position.\nOn the 27th of March a complaint of breach of privilege, founded on this\npublication, was made in the House by Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Lethbridge,\nand after several long debates, a motion that Sir Francis Burdett should\nbe committed to the Tower was made on the 5th of April, 1810, by Sir\nRobert Salisbury, and carried by a majority of 38.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere are two principles in every European and Christian state:\nPermanency and Progression.[1]\n\nIn the civil wars of the seventeenth century in England, which are as new\nand fresh now as they were a hundred and sixty years ago, and will be so\nfor ever to us, these two principles came to a struggle. It was natural\nthat the great and the good of the nation should he found in the ranks of\neither side. In the Mohammedan states, there is no principle of permanence;\nand, therefore, they sink directly. They existed, and could only exist, in\ntheir efforts at progression; when they ceased to conquer, they fell in\npieces. Turkey would long since have fallen, had it not been supported by\nthe rival and conflicting interests of Christian Europe. The Turks have no\nchurch; religion and state are one; hence there is no counterpoise, no\nmutual support. This is the very essence of their Unitarianism. They have\nno past; they are not an historical people; they exist only in the present.\nChina is an instance of a permanency without progression. The Persians are\na superior race: they have a history and a literature; they were always\nconsidered by the Greeks as quite distinct from the other barbarians. The\nAfghans are a remarkable people. They have a sort of republic. Europeans\nand Orientalists may be well represented by two figures standing back to\nback: the latter looking to the east, that is, backwards; the former\nlooking westward, or forwards.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee this position stated and illustrated in detail in Mr. Coleridge's work,\n\"On the Constitution of the Church and State, according to the Idea of\neach,\" p. 21. 2d edit. 1830. Well acquainted as I am with the fact f the\ncomparatively small acceptation which Mr. Coleridge's prose works have ever\nfound in the literary world, and with the reasons, and, what is more, with\nthe causes, of it, I still wonder that this particular treatise has not\nbeen more noticed: first, because it is a little book; secondly, because it\nis, or at least nineteen-twentieths of it are, written in a popular style;\nand thirdly, because it is the only work, that I know or have ever heard\nmentioned, that even attempts a solution of the difficulty in which an\ningenious enemy of the church of England may easily involve most of its\nmodern defenders in Parliament, or through the press, upon their own\nprinciples and admissions. Mr. Coleridge himself prized this little work\nhighly, although he admitted its incompleteness as a composition:--\"But I\ndon't care a rush about it,\" he said to me, \"as an author. The saving\ndistinctions are plainly stated in it, and I am sure nothing is wanted to\nmake them _tell_, but that some kind friend should steal them from their\nobscure hiding-place, and just tumble them down before the public as _his\nown_.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nKant assigns three great races of mankind. If two individuals of distinct\nraces cross, a third, or _tertium aliquid_, is _invariably_ produced,\ndifferent from either, as a white and a negro produce a mulatto. But when\ndifferent varieties of the same race cross, the offspring is according to\nwhat we call chance; it is now like one, now like the other parent. Note\nthis, when you see the children of any couple of distinct European\ncomplexions,--as English and Spanish, German and Italian, Russian and\nPortuguese, and so on.\n\n\n\n_January_ 3. 1823.\n\nMATERIALISM.--GHOSTS.\n\n\nEither we have an immortal soul, or we have not. If we have not, we are\nbeasts; the first and wisest of beasts, it may be; but still true beasts.\n[1] We shall only differ in degree, and not in kind; just as the elephant\ndiffers from the slug. But by the concession of all the materialists of all\nthe schools, or almost all, we are not of the same kind as beasts--and this\nalso we say from our own consciousness. Therefore, methinks, it must be the\npossession of a soul within us that makes the difference.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Try to conceive a _man_ without the ideas of God, eternity, freedom, will,\nabsolute truth; of the good, the true, the beautiful, the infinite. An\n_animal_ endowed with a memory of appearances and facts might remain. But\nthe _man_ will have vanished, and you have instead a creature more subtle\nthan any beast of the field, but likewise cursed above every beast of the\nfield; upon the belly must it go, and dust must it eat all the days of its\nlife.\"--_Church and State_, p. 54. n.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRead the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice, and you will be\nconvinced at once. After the narrative of the creation of the earth and\nbrute animals, Moses seems to pause, and says:--\"And God said, Let us make\nman in _our image_, after _our likeness_.\" And in the next chapter, he\nrepeats the narrative:--\"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the\nground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;\" and then he\nadds these words,--\"_and man became a living soul_.\" Materialism will never\nexplain those last words.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDefine a vulgar ghost with reference to all that is called ghost-like. It\nis visibility without tangibility; which is also the definition of a\nshadow. Therefore, a vulgar ghost and a shadow would be the same; because\ntwo different things cannot properly have the same definition. A _visible\nsubstance_ without susceptibility of impact, I maintain to be an absurdity.\n\n\n\nUnless there be an external substance, the bodily eye _cannot_ see it;\ntherefore, in all such cases, that which is supposed to be seen is, in\nfact, _not_ seen, but is an image of the brain. External objects naturally\nproduce sensation; but here, in truth, sensation produces, as it were, the\nexternal object. In certain states of the nerves, however, I do believe\nthat the eye, although not consciously so directed, may, by a slight\nconvulsion, see a portion of the body, as if opposite to it. The part\nactually seen will by common association seem the whole; and the whole body\nwill then constitute an external object, which explains many stories of\npersons seeing themselves lying dead. Bishop Berkeley once experienced\nthis. He had the presence of mind to ring the bell, and feel his pulse;\nkeeping his eye still fixed on his own figure right opposite to him. He was\nin a high fever, and the brain image died away as the door opened. I\nobserved something very like it once at Grasmere; and was so conscious of\nthe cause, that I told a person what I was experiencing, whilst the image\nstill remained.\n\nOf course, if the vulgar ghost be really a shadow, there must be some\nsubstance of which it is the shadow. These visible and intangible shadows,\nwithout substances to cause them, are absurd.\n\n\n\nJanuary 4. 1828.\n\nCHARACTER OF THE AGE FOR LOGIC.--PLATO AND XENOPHON.----GREEK DRAMA.----\nKOTZEBUE.--BURKE.--PLAGIARISTS.\n\n\nThis is not a logical age. A friend lately gave me some political pamphlets\nof the times of Charles I. and the Cromwellate. In them the premisses are\nfrequently wrong, but the deductions are almost always legitimate; whereas,\nin the writings of the present day, the premisses are commonly sound, but\nthe conclusions false. I think a great deal of commendation is due to the\nUniversity of Oxford for preserving the study of logic in the schools. It\nis a great mistake to suppose geometry any substitute for it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNegatively, there may be more of the philosophy of Socrates in the\nMemorabilia of Xenophon than in Plato: that is, there is less of what does\nnot belong to Socrates; but the general spirit of, and impression left by,\nPlato, are more Socratic.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee p. 26. Mr. Coleridge meant in both these passages, that Xenophon had\npreserved the most of the _man_ Socrates; that he was the best Boswell; and\nthat Socrates, as a _persona dialogi_, was little more than a poetical\nphantom in Plato's hands. On the other hand, he says that Plato is more\n_Socratic_, that is, more of a philosopher in the Socratic _mode_ of\nreasoning (Cicero calls the Platonic writings generally, _Socratici\nlibri_); and Mr. C. also says, that in the metaphysical disquisitions Plato\nis Pythagorean, meaning, that he worked on the supposed ideal or\ntranscendental principles of the extraordinary founder of the Italian\nschool.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn \u00c6schylus religion appears terrible, malignant, and persecuting:\nSophocles is the mildest of the three tragedians, but the persecuting\naspect is still maintained: Euripides is like a modern Frenchman, never so\nhappy as when giving a slap at the gods altogether.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nKotzebue represents the petty kings of the islands in the Pacific Ocean\nexactly as so many Homeric chiefs. Riches command universal influence, and\nall the kings are supposed to be descended from the gods.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI confess I doubt the Homeric genuineness of [Greek: dakruoen gelaschsa].\n[1] It sounds to me much more like a prettiness of Bion or Moschus.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n[Greek: hos eipon, alochoio thilaes en chersin ethaeke paid eon hae d ara\nmin chaeodei dexato cholpo, dachruoen gelasasa.]--Illiad. Z. vi. 482]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe very greatest writers write best when calm, and exerting themselves\nupon subjects unconnected with party. Burke rarely shows all his powers,\nunless where he is in a passion. The French Revolution was alone a subject\nfit for him. We are not yet aware of all the consequences of that event. We\nare too near it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGoldsmith did every thing happily.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou abuse snuff! Perhaps it is the final cause of the human nose.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA rogue is a roundabout fool; a fool _in circumbendibus_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Omne ignotum pro magnifico_. A dunghill at a distance sometimes smells\nlike musk, and a dead dog like elder-flowers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPlagiarists are always suspicious of being stolen from,--as pickpockets are\nobserved commonly to walk with their hands in their breeches' pockets.\n\n\n\n_January 6_. 1823.\n\nST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.--CHRISTIANITY--EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.--THE LOGOS.--\nREASON AND UNDERSTANDING.\n\n\nSt. John had a twofold object in his Gospel and his Epistles,--to prove the\ndivinity, and also the actual human nature and bodily suffering, of Jesus\nChrist,--that he was God and Man. The notion that the effusion of blood and\nwater from the Saviour's side was intended to prove the real _death_ of the\nsufferer originated, I believe, with some modern Germans, and seems to me\nridiculous: there is, indeed, a very small quantity of water occasionally\nin the pr\u00e6cordia: but in the pleura, where wounds are not generally mortal,\nthere is a great deal. St. John did not mean, I apprehend, to insinuate\nthat the spear-thrust made the _death_, merely as such, certain or evident,\nbut that the effusion showed the human nature. \"I saw it,\" he would say,\n\"with my own eyes. It was real blood, composed of lymph and crassamentum,\nand not a mere celestial ichor, as the Phantasmists allege.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think the verse of the three witnesses (1 John, v. 7.) spurious, not only\nbecause the balance of external authority is against it, as Porson seems to\nhave shown; but also, because, in my way of looking at it, it spoils the\nreasoning.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSt. John's logic is Oriental, and consists chiefly in position and\nparallel; whilst St. Paul displays all the intricacies of the Greek system.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhatever may be thought of the genuineness or authority of any part of the\nbook of Daniel, it makes no difference in my belief in Christianity; for\nChristianity is within a man, even as he is a being gifted with reason; it\nis associated with your mother's chair, and with the first-remembered tones\nof her blessed voice.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI do not believe St. Paul to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.\nLuther's conjecture is very probable, that it was by Apollos, an\nAlexandrian Jew. The plan is too studiously regular for St. Paul. It was\nevidently written during the yet existing glories of the Temple. For three\nhundred years the church did not affix St. Paul's name to it; but its\napostolical or catholic character, independently of its genuineness as to\nSt. Paul, was never much doubted.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first three Gospels show the history, that is, the fulfilment of the\nprophecies in the facts. St. John declares explicitly the doctrine,\noracularly, and without comment, because, being pure reason, it can only be\nproved by itself. For Christianity proves itself, as the sun is seen by its\nown light. Its evidence is involved in its existence. St. Paul writes more\nparticularly for the dialectic understanding; and proves those doctrines,\nwhich were capable of such proof, by common logic.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSt. John used the term [Greek: ho Logos] technically. Philo-Jud\u00e6us had so\nused it several years before the probable date of the composition of this\nGospel; and it was commonly understood amongst the Jewish Rabbis at that\ntime, and afterwards, of the manifested God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOur translators, unfortunately, as I think, render the clause [Greek: pros\nton Theos] \"_with_ God;\" that would be right, if the Greek were [Greek: syn\nto Theo].[1]\n\nBy the preposition [Greek: pros] in this place, is meant the utmost\npossible _proximity_, without _confusion_; likeness, without sameness. The\nJewish Church understood the Messiah to be a divine person. Philo expressly\ncautions against any one's supposing the Logos to be a mere\npersonification, or symbol. He says, the Logos is a substantial, self-\nexistent Being. The Gnostics, as they were afterwards called, were a kind\nof Arians; and thought the Logos was an after-birth. They placed [Greek:\nAbyssos] and [Greek: Sigae] (the Abyss and Silence) before him. Therefore\nit was that St. John said, with emphasis, [Greek: en archae aen ho Logos]--\n\"In the _beginning_ was the Word.\" He was begotten in the first\nsimultaneous burst of Godhead, if such an expression may be pardoned, in\nspeaking of eternal existence.\n\n[Footnote 1: John, ch. i. v. 1, 2.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Understanding suggests the materials of reasoning: the Reason decides\nupon them. The first can only say,--This _is_, or _ought_ to be so. The\nlast says,--It _must_ be so.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI have preserved this, and several other equivalent remarks, out of a\ndutiful wish to popularize, by all the honest means in my power, this\nfundamental distinction; a thorough mastery of which Mr. Coleridge\nconsidered necessary to any sound system of psychology; and in the denial\nor neglect of which, he delighted to point out the source of most of the\nvulgar errors in philosophy and religion. The distinction itself is\nimplied throughout almost all Mr. C.'s works, whether in verse or prose;\nbut it may be found minutely argued in the \"Aids to Reflection,\" p. 206,\n&c. 2d edit. 1831.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_April_ 27. 1823.\n\nKEAN.--SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH.--SIR H. DAVY.--ROBERT SMITH.--CANNING.--\nNATIONAL DEBT.--POOR LAWS.\n\n\nKean is original; but he copies from himself. His rapid descents from the\nhyper-tragic to the infra-colloquial, though sometimes productive of great\neffect, are often unreasonable. To see him act, is like reading Shakspeare\nby flashes of lightning. I do not think him thorough-bred gentleman enough\nto play Othello.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSir James Mackintosh is the king of the men of talent. He is a most elegant\nconverger. How well I remember his giving breakfast to me and Sir Humphry\nDavy, at that time an unknown young man, and our having a very spirited\ntalk about Locke and Newton, and so forth! When Davy was gone, Mackintosh\nsaid to me, \"That's a very extraordinary young man; but he is gone wrong on\nsome points.\" But Davy was, at that time at least, a man of genius; and I\ndoubt if Mackintosh ever heartily appreciated an eminently original man. He\nis uncommonly powerful in his own line; but it is not the line of a first-\nrate man. After all his fluency and brilliant erudition, you can rarely\ncarry off any thing worth preserving. You might not improperly write on his\nforehead, \"Warehouse to let!\" He always dealt too much in generalities for\na lawyer. He is deficient in power in applying his principles to the points\nin debate. I remember Robert Smith had much more logical ability; but Smith\naimed at conquest by any gladiatorial shift; whereas Mackintosh was\nuniformly candid in argument. I am speaking now from old recollections.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCanning is very irritable, surprisingly so for a wit who is always giving\nsuch hard knocks. He should have put on an ass's skin before he went into\nparliament. Lord Liverpool is the single stay of this ministry; but he is\nnot a man of a directing mind. He cannot ride on the whirlwind. He serves\nas the isthmus to connect one half of the cabinet with the other. He always\ngives you the common sense of the matter, and in that it is that his\nstrength in debate lies.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe national debt has, in fact, made more men rich than have a right to be\nso, or, rather, any ultimate power, in case of a struggle, of actualizing\ntheir riches. It is, in effect, like an ordinary, where three hundred\ntickets have been distributed, but where there is, in truth, room only for\none hundred. So long as you can amuse the company with any thing else, or\nmake them come in successively, all is well, and the whole three hundred\nfancy themselves sure of a dinner; but if any suspicion of a hoax should\narise, and they were all to rush into the room at once, there would be two\nhundred without a potato for their money; and the table would be occupied\nby the landholders, who live on the spot.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPoor-laws are the inevitable accompaniments of an extensive commerce and a\nmanufacturing system. In Scotland, they did without them, till Glasgow and\nPaisley became great manufacturing places, and then people said, \"We must\nsubscribe for the poor, or else we shall have poor-laws.\" That is to say,\nthey enacted for themselves a poor-law in order to avoid having a poor-law\nenacted for them. It is absurd to talk of Queen Elizabeth's act as creating\nthe poor-laws of this country. The poor-rates are the consideration paid\nby, or on behalf of, capitalists for having labour at demand. It is the\nprice, and nothing else. The hardship consists in the agricultural interest\nhaving to pay an undue proportion of the rates; for although, perhaps, in\nthe end, the land becomes more valuable, yet, at the first, the landowners\nhave to bear all the brunt. I think there ought to be a fixed revolving\nperiod for the equalization of rates.\n\n\n\n_April_ 28. 1823.\n\nCONDUCT OF THE WHIGS.--REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\nThe conduct of the Whigs is extravagantly inconsistent. It originated in\nthe fatal error which Fox committed, in persisting, after the first three\nyears of the French Revolution, when every shadow of freedom in France had\nvanished, in eulogizing the men and measures of that shallow-hearted\npeople. So he went on gradually, further and further departing from all the\nprinciples of English policy and wisdom, till at length he became the\npanegyrist, through thick and thin, of a military frenzy, under the\ninfluence of which the very name of liberty was detested. And thus it was\nthat, in course of time, Fox's party became the absolute abettors of the\nBuonapartean invasion of Spain, and did all in their power to thwart the\ngenerous efforts of this country to resist it. Now, when the invasion is by\na Bourbon, and the cause of the Spanish nation neither united nor, indeed,\nsound in many respects, the Whigs would precipitate this country into a\ncrusade to fight up the cause of a faction.\n\nI have the honour of being slightly known to my lord Darnley. In 1808-9, I\nmet him accidentally, when, after a few words of salutation, he said to me,\n\"Are you mad, Mr. Coleridge?\"--\"Not that I know, my lord,\" I replied; \"what\nhave I done which argues any derangement of mind?\"--\"Why, I mean,\" said he,\n\"those letters of yours in the Courier, 'On the Hopes and Fears of a People\ninvaded by foreign Armies.' The Spaniards are absolutely conquered; it is\nabsurd to talk of their chance of resisting.\"--\"Very well, my lord,\" I\nsaid, \"we shall see. But will your lordship permit me, in the course of a\nyear or two, to retort your question upon you, if I should have grounds for\nso doing?\"--\"Certainly!\" said he; \"that is fair!\" Two years afterwards,\nwhen affairs were altered in Spain, I met Lord Darnley again, and, after\nsome conversation, ventured to say to him, \"Does your lordship recollect\ngiving me leave to retort a certain question upon you about the Spaniards?\nWho is mad now?\"--\"Very true, very true, Mr. Coleridge,\" cried he: \"you are\nright. It is very extraordinary. It was a very happy and hold guess.\" Upon\nwhich I remarked, \"I think '_guess_' is hardly a fair term. For, has any\nthing happened that has happened, from any other causes, or under any other\nconditions, than such as I laid down Beforehand?\" Lord Darnley, who was\nalways very courteous to me, took this with a pleasant nod of his head.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMany votes are given for reform in the House of Commons, which are not\nhonest. Whilst it is well known that the measure will not he carried in\nparliament, it is as well to purchase some popularity by voting for it.\nWhen Hunt and his associates, before the Six Acts, created a panic, the\nministers lay on their oars for three or four months, until the general\ncry, even from the opposition, was, \"Why don't the ministers come forward\nwith some protective measure?\" The present Ministry exists on the weakness\nand desperate character of the Opposition. The sober part of the nation are\nafraid of the latter getting into power, lest they should redeem some of\ntheir pledges.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n_April_ 29. 1823.\n\nCHURCH OF ROME.\n\n\nThe present adherents of the church of Rome are not, in my judgment,\nCatholics. We are the Catholics. We can prove that we hold the doctrines of\nthe primitive church for the first three hundred years. The council of\nTrent made the Papists what they are. [1] A foreign Romish bishop has\ndeclared, that the Protestants of his acquaintance were more like what he\nconceived the enlightened Catholics to have been before the council of\nTrent, than the best of the latter in his days. Perhaps you will say, this\nbishop was not a _good Catholic_.[2] I cannot answer for that. The course\nof Christianity and the Christian church may not unaptly be likened to a\nmighty river, which filled a wide channel, and bore along with its waters\nmud, and gravel, and weeds, till it met a great rock in the middle of its\nstream. By some means or other, the water flows purely, and separated from\nthe filth, in a deeper and narrower course on one side of the rock, and the\nrefuse of the dirt and troubled water goes off on the other in a broader\ncurrent, and then cries out, \"_We_ are the river!\"\n\n[Footnote 1: See Aids to Reflection, p. 180. note.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mr. Coleridge named him, but the name was strange to me, and I\nhave been unable to recover it--ED.]\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA person said to me lately, \"But you will, for civility's sake, _call_ them\n_Catholics_, will you not?\" I answered, that I would not; for I would not\ntell a lie upon any, much less upon so solemn an occasion. \"The adherents\nof the church of Rome, I repeat, are not _Catholic_ Christians. If they\nare, then it follows that we Protestants are heretics and schismatics, as,\nindeed, the Papists very logically, from their own premisses, call us. And\n'_Roman_ Catholics' makes no difference. Catholicism is not capable of\ndegrees or local apportionments. There can be but one body of Catholics,\n_ex vi termini_. To talk strictly of _Irish_ or _Scotch Roman_ Catholics is\na mere absurdity.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is common to hear it said, that, if the legal disabilities are removed,\nthe Romish church will lose ground in this country. I think the reverse:\nthe Romish religion is, or, in certain hands, is capable of being made, so\nflattering to the passions and self-delusion of men, that it is impossible\nto say how far it would spread, amongst the higher orders of society\nespecially, if the secular disadvantages now attending its profession were\nremoved.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nHere, at least, the prophecy has been fulfilled. The wisdom of our\nancestors, in the reign of King William III., would have been jealous of\nthe daily increase in the numbers of the Romish church in England, of which\nevery attentive observer must be aware. See _Sancti Dominici Pallium_, in\nvol. ii. p. 80. of Mr. Coleridge's Poems.-Ed.]\n\n\n\nApril 30. 1823.\n\nZENDAVESTA.--PANTHEISM AND IDOLATRY.\n\n\nThe Zendavesta must, I think, have been copied in parts from the writings\nof Moses. In the description of the creation, the first chapter of Genesis\nis taken almost literally, except that the sun is created _before_ the\nlight, and then the herbs and the plants after the sun; which are precisely\nthe two points they did not understand, and therefore altered as errors.[1]\n\nThere are only two acts of creation, properly so called, in the Mosaic\naccount,--the material universe and man. The intermediate acts seem more as\nthe results of secondary causes, or, at any rate, of a modification of\nprepared materials.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe Zend, or Zendavesta, is the sacred book ascribed to Zoroaster, or\nZerdusht, the founder or reformer of the Magian religion. The modern\nedition or paraphrase of this work, called the Sadda, written in the\nPersian of the day, was, I believe, composed about three hundred years ago\n--Ed.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPantheism and idolatry naturally end in each other; for all extremes meet.\nThe Judaic religion is the exact medium, the true compromise.\n\n\n\n_May_ 1. 1823.\n\nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN STORIES OF DREAMS AND GHOSTS.\n--PHANTOM PORTRAIT.--WITCH\nOF ENDOR.--SOCINIANISM.\n\n\nThere is a great difference in the credibility to be attached to stories of\ndreams and stories of ghosts. Dreams have nothing in them which are absurd\nand nonsensical; and, though most of the coincidences may be readily\nexplained by the diseased system of the dreamer, and the great and\nsurprising power of association, yet it is impossible to say whether an\ninner sense does not really exist in the mind, seldom developed, indeed,\nbut which may have a power of presentiment. [1]\n\nAll the external senses have their correspondents in the mind; the eye can\nsee an object before it is distinctly apprehended;--why may there not be a\ncorresponding power in the soul? The power of prophecy might have been\nmerely a spiritual excitation of this dormant faculty. Hence you will\nobserve that the Hebrew seers sometimes seem to have required music, as in\nthe instance of Elisha before Jehoram:--\"But now bring me a minstrel. And\nit came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came\nupon him.\" [2] Every thing in nature has a tendency to move in cycles; and\nit would be a miracle if, out of such myriads of cycles moving\nconcurrently, some coincidences did not take place. No doubt, many such\ntake place in the daytime; but then our senses drive out the remembrance of\nthem, and render the impression hardly felt; but when we sleep, the mind\nacts without interruption. Terror and the heated imagination will, even in\nthe daytime, create all sorts of features, shapes, and colours out of a\nsimple object possessing none of them in reality.\n\nBut ghost stories are absurd. Whenever a real ghost appears,--by which I\nmean some man or woman dressed up to frighten another,--if the supernatural\ncharacter of the apparition has been for a moment believed, the effects on\nthe spectator have always been most terrible,--convulsion, idiocy, madness,\nor even death on the spot. Consider the awful descriptions in the Old\nTestament of the effects of a spiritual presence on the prophets and seers\nof the Hebrews; the terror, the exceeding great dread, the utter loss of\nall animal power. But in our common ghost stories, you always find that the\nseer, after a most appalling apparition, as you are to believe, is quite\nwell the next day. Perhaps, he may have a headach; but that is the outside\nof the effect produced. Alston, a man of genius, and the best painter yet\nproduced by America, when he was in England told me an anecdote which\nconfirms what I have been saying. It was, I think, in the university of\nCambridge, near Boston, that a certain youth took it into his wise head to\nendeavour to convert a Tom-Painish companion of his by appearing as a ghost\nbefore him. He accordingly dressed himself up in the usual way, having\npreviously extracted the ball from the pistol which always lay near the\nhead of his friend's bed. Upon first awaking, and seeing the apparition,\nthe youth who was to be frightened, A., very coolly looked his companion\nthe ghost in the face, and said, \"I know you. This is a good joke; but you\nsee I am not frightened. Now you may vanish!\" The ghost stood still.\n\"Come,\" said A., \"that is enough. I shall get angry. Away!\" Still the ghost\nmoved not. \"By ----,\" ejaculated A., \"if you do not in three minutes go\naway, I'll shoot you.\" He waited the time, deliberately levelled the\npistol, fired, and, with a scream at the immobility of the figure, became\nconvulsed, and afterwards died. The very instant he believed it _to be_ a\nghost, his human nature fell before it.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee this point suggested and reasoned with extraordinary subtlety in the\nthird essay (marked C), in the Appendix to the Statesman's Manual, Or first\nLay Sermon, p. 19, &c. One beautiful paragraph I will venture to quote:--\n\"Not only may we expect that men of strong religious feelings, but little\nreligious knowledge, will occasionally be tempted to regard such\noccurrences as supernatural visitations; but it ought not to surprise us if\nsuch dreams should sometimes be confirmed by the event, as though they had\nactually possessed a character of divination. For who shall decide how far\na perfect reminiscence of past experiences (of many, perhaps, that had\nescaped our reflex consciousness at the time)--who shall determine to what\nextent this reproductive imagination, unsophisticated by the will, and\nundistracted by intrusions from the senses, may or may not be concentred\nand sublimed into foresight and presentiment? There would be nothing herein\neither to foster superstition on the one hand, or to justify contemptuous\ndisbelief on the other. Incredulity is but Credulity seen from behind,\nbowing and nodding assent to the Habitual and the Fashionable\"-ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2: 2 Kings, iii. 15., and see 1 Sam. x. 5.--ED.]\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n[What follows in the text within commas was written about this time, and\ncommunicated to me by Mr. Justice Coleridge.--ED.]\n\n\"Last Thursday my uncle, S. T. C., dined with us, and several men came to\nmeet him. I have heard him more brilliant, but he was very fine, and\ndelighted every one very much. It is impossible to carry off, or commit to\npaper, his long trains of argument; indeed, it is not always possible to\nunderstand them, he lays the foundation so deep, and views every question\nin so original a manner. Nothing can be finer than the principles which he\nlays down in morals and religion. His deep study of Scripture is very\nastonishing; the rest of the party were but as children in his hands, not\nmerely in general views of theology, but in nice verbal criticism. He\nthinks it clear that St. Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews, but\nthat it must have been the work of some Alexandrian Greek, and he thinks\nApollos. It seemed to him a desirable thing for Christianity that it should\nhave been written by some other person than St. Paul; because, its\ninspiration being unquestioned, it added another independent teacher and\nexpounder of the faith.\n\n\"We fell upon ghosts, and he exposed many of the stories physically and\nmetaphysically. He seemed to think it impossible that you should really see\nwith the bodily eye what was impalpable, unless it were a shadow; and if\nwhat you fancied you saw with the bodily eye was in fact only an impression\non the imagination, then you were seeing something _out of your senses_,\nand your testimony was full of uncertainty. He observed how uniformly, in\nall the best-attested stories of spectres, the appearance might be\naccounted for from the disturbed state of the mind or body of the seer, as\nin the instances of Dion and Brutus. Upon some one's saying that he\n_wished_ to believe these stories true, thinking that they constituted a\nuseful subsidiary testimony of another state of existence, Mr. C. differed,\nand said, he thought it a dangerous testimony, and one not wanted: it was\nSaul, with the Scriptures and the Prophet before him, calling upon the\nwitch of Endor to certify him of the truth! He explained very ingeniously,\nyet very naturally, what has often startled people in ghost stories--such\nas Lord Lyttelton's--namely, that when a real person has appeared, habited\nlike the phantom, the ghost-seer has immediately seen two, the real man and\nthe phantom. He said that such must be the case. The man under the morbid\ndelusion sees with the eye of the imagination, and sees with the bodily eye\ntoo; if no one were really present, he would see the spectre with one, and\nthe bed-curtains with the other. When, therefore, a real person comes, he\nsees the real man as he would have seen any one else in the same place, and\nhe sees the spectre not a whit the less: being perceptible by different\npowers of vision, so to say, the appearances do not interfere with each\nother.\n\n\"He told us the following story of the Phantom Portrait [1]:--\n\n\"A stranger came recommended to a merchant's house at Lubeck. He was\nhospitably received; but, the house being full, he was lodged at night in\nan apartment handsomely furnished, but not often used. There was nothing\nthat struck him particularly in the room when left alone, till he happened\nto cast his eyes on a picture, which immediately arrested his attention. It\nwas a single head; but there was something so uncommon, so frightful and\nunearthly, in its expression, though by no means ugly, that he found\nhimself irresistibly attracted to look at it. In fact, he could not tear\nhimself from the fascination of this portrait, till his imagination was\nfilled by it, and his rest broken. He retired to bed, dreamed, and awoke\nfrom time to time with the head glaring on him. In the morning, his host\nsaw by his looks that he had slept ill, and inquired the cause, which was\ntold. The master of the house was much vexed, and said that the picture\nought to have been removed, that it was an oversight, and that it always\nwas removed when the chamber was used. The picture, he said, was, indeed,\nterrible to every one; but it was so fine, and had come into the family in\nso curious a way, that he could not make up his mind to part with it, or to\ndestroy it. The story of it was this:--'My father,' said he, 'was at\nHamburgh on business, and, whilst dining at a coffee-house, he observed a\nyoung man of a remarkable appearance enter, seat himself alone in a corner,\nand commence a solitary meal. His countenance bespoke the extreme of mental\ndistress, and every now and then he turned his head quickly round, as if he\nheard something, then shudder, grow pale, and go on with his meal after an\neffort as before. My father saw this same man at the same place for two or\nthree successive days; and at length became so much interested about him,\nthat he spoke to him. The address was not repulsed, and the stranger seemed\nto find some comfort in the tone of sympathy and kindness which my father\nused. He was an Italian, well informed, poor but not destitute, and living\neconomically upon the profits of his art as a painter. Their intimacy\nincreased; and at length the Italian, seeing my father's involuntary\nemotion at his convulsive turnings and shuddering, which continued as\nformerly, interrupting their conversation from time to time, told him his\nstory. He was a native of Rome, and had lived in some familiarity with, and\nbeen much patronized by, a young nobleman; but upon some slight occasion\nthey had fallen out, and his patron, besides using many reproachful\nexpressions, had struck him. The painter brooded over the disgrace of the\nblow. He could not challenge the nobleman, on account of his rank; he\ntherefore watched for an opportunity, and assassinated him. Of course he\nfled from his country, and finally had reached Hamburgh. He had not,\nhowever, passed many weeks from the night of the murder, before, one day,\nin the crowded street, he heard his name called by a voice familiar to him:\nhe turned short round, and saw the face of his victim looking at him with a\nfixed eye. From that moment he had no peace: at all hours, in all places,\nand amidst all companies, however engaged he might be, he heard the voice,\nand could never help looking round; and, whenever he so looked round, he\nalways encountered the same face staring close upon him. At last, in a mood\nof desperation, he had fixed himself face to face, and eye to eye, and\ndeliberately drawn the phantom visage as it glared upon him; and _this_ was\nthe picture so drawn. The Italian said he had struggled long, but life was\na burden which he could now no longer bear; and he was resolved, when he\nhad made money enough to return to Rome, to surrender himself to justice,\nand expiate his crime on the scaffold. He gave the finished picture to my\nfather, in return for the kindness which he had shown to him.'\"\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis is the story which Mr. Washington Irving has dressed up very prettily\nin the first volume of his \"Tales of a Traveller,\" pp. 84-119.; professing\nin his preface that he could not remember whence he had derived the\nanecdote.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have no doubt that the Jews believed generally in a future state,\nindependently of the Mosaic law. The story of the witch of Endor is a proof\nof it. What we translate \"_witch_,\" or \"familiar spirit,\" is, in the\nHebrew, Ob, that is, a bottle or bladder, and means a person whose belly is\nswelled like a leathern bottle by divine inflation. In the Greek it is\n[Greek: engastrimuthos], a ventriloquist. The text (1 Sam. ch. xxviii.) is\na simple record of the facts, the solution of which the sacred historian\nleaves to the reader. I take it to have been a trick of ventriloquism, got\nup by the courtiers and friends of Saul, to prevent him, if possible, from\nhazarding an engagement with an army despondent and oppressed with bodings\nof defeat. Saul is not said to have seen Samuel; the woman only pretends to\nsee him. And then what does this Samuel do? He merely repeats the prophecy\nknown to all Israel, which the true Samuel had uttered some years before.\nRead Captain Lyon's account of the scene in the cabin with the Esquimaux\nbladder, or conjurer; it is impossible not to be reminded of the witch of\nEndor. I recommend you also to look at Webster's admirable treatise on\nWitchcraft.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe pet texts of a Socinian are quite enough for his confutation with acute\nthinkers. If Christ had been a mere man, it would have been ridiculous in\n_him_ to call himself \"the Son of man;\" but being God and man, it then\nbecame, in his own assumption of it, a peculiar and mysterious title. So,\nif Christ had been a mere man, his saying, \"My Father is greater than I,\"\n(John, xv. 28.) would have been as unmeaning. It would be laughable enough,\nfor example, to hear me say, \"My 'Remorse' succeeded, indeed, but\nShakspeare is a greater dramatist than I.\" But how immeasurably more\nfoolish, more monstrous, would it not be for a _man_, however honest, good,\nor wise, to say, \"But Jehovah is greater than I!\"\n\n\n\n_May_ 8. 1824.\n\nPLATO AND XENOPHON.--RELIGIONS OF THE GREEKS.--EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.--\nMILTON.--VIRGIL.\n\n\nPlato's works are logical exercises for the mind. Little that is positive\nis advanced in them. Socrates may be fairly represented by Plato in the\nmore moral parts; but in all the metaphysical disquisitions it is\nPythagoras. Xenophon's representation of his master is quite different.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: See p. 9. n.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nObserve the remarkable contrast between the religion of the tragic and\nother poets of Greece. The former are always opposed in heart to the\npopular divinities. In fact, there are the popular, the sacerdotal, and the\nmysterious religions of Greece, represented roughly by Homer, Pindar, and\n\u00c6schylus. The ancients had no notion of a _fall_ of man, though they had of\nhis gradual degeneracy. Prometheus, in the old mythus, and for the most\npart in AEschylus, is the Redeemer and the Devil jumbled together.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot say I expect much from mere Egyptian antiquities. Almost every\nthing really, that is, intellectually, great in that country seems to me of\nGrecian origin.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think nothing can be added to Milton's definition or rule of poetry,--\nthat it ought to be simple, sensuous, and impassioned; that is to say,\nsingle in conception, abounding in sensible images, and informing them all\nwith the spirit of the mind.\n\nMilton's Latin style is, I think, better and easier than his English. His\nstyle, in prose, is quite as characteristic of him as a philosophic\nrepublican, as Cowley's is of _him_ as a first-rate gentleman.\n\nIf you take from Virgil his diction and metre, what do you leave him?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_June_ 2. 1824.\n\nCRANVILLE PENN AND THE DELUGE.--RAINBOW.\n\n\nI confess I have small patience with Mr. Granville Penn's book against\nProfessor Buckland. Science will be superseded, if every phenomenon is to\nbe referred in this manner to an actual miracle. I think it absurd to\nattribute so much to the Deluge. An inundation, which left an olive-tree\nstanding, and bore up the ark peacefully on its bosom, could scarcely have\nbeen the sole cause of the rents and dislocations observable on the face of\nthe earth. How could the tropical animals, which have been discovered in\nEngland and in Russia in a perfectly natural state, have been transported\nthither by such a flood? Those animals must evidently have been natives of\nthe countries in which they have been found. The climates must have been\naltered. Assume a sudden evaporation upon the retiring of the Deluge to\nhave caused an intense cold, the solar heat might not be sufficient\nafterwards to overcome it. I do not think that the polar cold is adequately\nexplained by mere comparative distance from the sun.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou will observe, that there is no mention of rain previously to the\nDeluge. Hence it may be inferred, that the rainbow was exhibited for the\nfirst time after God's covenant with Noah. However, I only suggest this.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Earth with its scarred face is the symbol of the Past; the Air and\nHeaven, of Futurity.\n\n\n_June_ 5. 1824.\n\nENGLISH AND GREEK DANCING.--GREEK ACOUSTICS.\n\n\nThe fondness for dancing in English women is the reaction of their reserved\nmanners. It is the only way in which they can throw themselves forth in\nnatural liberty. We have no adequate conception of the perfection of the\nancient tragic dance. The pleasure which the Greeks received from it had\nfor its basis Difference and the more unfit the vehicle, the more lively\nwas the curiosity and intense the delight at seeing the difficulty\novercome.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe ancients certainly seem to have understood some principles in acoustics\nwhich we have lost, or, at least, they applied them better. They contrived\nto convey the voice distinctly in their huge theatres by means of pipes,\nwhich created no echo or confusion. Our theatres--Drury Lane and Covent\nGarden--are fit for nothing: they are too large for acting, and too small\nfor a bull-fight.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_June_ 7. 1824.\n\nLORD BYRON'S VERSIFICATION, AND DON JUAN.\n\nHow lamentably the _art_ of versification is neglected by most of the\npoets of the present day!--by Lord Byron, as it strikes me, in particular,\namong those of eminence for other qualities. Upon the whole, I think the\npart of Don Juan in which Lambro's return to his home, and Lambro himself,\nare described, is the best, that is, the most individual, thing in all I\nknow of Lord B.'s works. The festal abandonment puts one in mind of\nNicholas Poussin's pictures.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge particularly noticed, for its classical air, the 32d stanza\nof this Canto (the third):--\n\n\"A band of children, round a snow-white ram,\n  There wreathe his venerable horns with flowers,\nWhile, peaceful as if still an unwean'd lamb,\n  The patriarch of the flock all gently cowers\nHis sober head, majestically tame,\n  Or eats from out the palm, or playful lowers\nHis brow, as if in act to butt, and then\nYielding to their small hands, draws back again.\"\n\nBut Mr. C. said that _then_, and _again_, made no rhyme to his ear. Why\nshould not the old form _agen_ be lawful in verse? We wilfully abridge\nourselves of the liberty which our great poets achieved and sanctioned for\nus in innumerable instances.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_June_ 10. 1824.\n\nPARENTAL CONTROL IN MARRIAGE.--MARRIAGE OF\nCOUSINS.--DIFFERENCE OF CHARACTER.\n\nUp to twenty-one, I hold a father to have power over his children as to\nmarriage; after that age, authority and influence only. Show me one couple\nunhappy merely on account of their limited circumstances, and I will show\nyou ten that are wretched from other causes.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf the matter were quite open, I should incline to disapprove the\nintermarriage of first cousins; but the church has decided otherwise on the\nauthority of Augustine, and that seems enough upon such a point.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou may depend upon it, that a slight contrast of character is very\nmaterial to happiness in marriage.\n\n\n\n\n_February_ 24. 1827.\n\nBLUMENBACH AND KANT'S RACES.--IAPETIC AND SEMITIC.--HEBREW.--SOLOMON.\n\nBlumenbach makes five races; Kant, three. Blumenbach's scale of dignity may\nbe thus figured:--\n\n                1. Caucasian or European.\n\n        2. Malay    =================  2. American\n\n   3. Negro    ==========================    3. Mongolian, Asiatic\n\nThere was, I conceive, one great Iapetic original of language, under which\nGreek, Latin, and other European dialects, and, perhaps, Sanscrit, range as\nspecies. The Iapetic race, [Greek: Iaones]; separated into two branches;\none, with a tendency to migrate south-west,--Greeks, Italians, &c.; and the\nother north-west,--Goths, Germans, Swedes, &c. The Hebrew is Semitic.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHebrew, in point of force and purity, seems at its height in Isaiah. It is\nmost corrupt in Daniel, and not much less so in Ecclesiastes; which I\ncannot believe to have been actually composed by Solomon, but rather\nsuppose to have been so attributed by the Jews, in their passion for\nascribing all works of that sort to their _grand monurque_.\n\n\n_March_ 10. 1827.\n\nJEWISH HISTORY.--SPINOZISTIC AND HEBREW SCHEMES.\n\nThe people of all other nations, but the Jewish, seem to look backwards and\nalso to exist for the present; but in the Jewish scheme every thing is\nprospective and preparatory; nothing, however trifling, is done for itself\nalone, but all is typical of something yet to come.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI would rather call the book of Proverbs Solomonian than as actually a work\nof Solomon's. So I apprehend many of the Psalms to be Davidical only, not\nDavid's own compositions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou may state the Pantheism of Spinosa, in contrast with the Hebrew or\nChristian scheme, shortly, as thus:--\n\nSpinosism.\n\nW-G = 0; _i.e._ the World without God is an impossible idea.\nG-W = 0; _i.e._ God without the World is so likewise.\n\nHebrew or Christian scheme.\n\nW-G = 0; _i.e._ The same as Spinosa's premiss.\nBut G-W = G; _i.e._ God without the World is God the self-subsistent.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_March_ 12. 1827.\n\nROMAN CATHOLICS.--ENERGY OF MAN AND OTHER ANIMALS.--SHAKSPEARE _IN\nMINIMIS_.--PAUL SARPI.--BARTRAM'S TRAVELS.\n\nI have no doubt that the real object closest to the hearts of the leading\nIrish Romanists is the destruction of the Irish Protestant church, and the\nre-establishment of their own. I think more is involved in the manner than\nthe matter of legislating upon the civil disabilities of the members of the\nchurch of Rome; and, for one, I should he willing to vote for a removal of\nthose disabilities, with two or three exceptions, upon a solemn declaration\nbeing made legislatively in parliament, that at no time, nor under any\ncircumstances, could or should a branch of the Romish hierarchy, as at\npresent constituted, become an estate of this realm.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: See Church and State, second part, p. 189.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nInternal or mental energy and external or corporeal modificability are in\ninverse proportions. In man, internal energy is greater than in any other\nanimal; and you will see that he is less changed by climate than any\nanimal. For the highest and lowest specimens of man are not one half as\nmuch apart from each other as the different kinds even of dogs, animals of\ngreat internal energy themselves.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor an instance of Shakspeare's power _in minimis_, I generally quote James\nGurney's character in King John. How individual and comical he is with the\nfour words allowed to his dramatic life! [1] And pray look at Skelton's\nRichard Sparrow also!\n\nPaul Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent deserves your study. It is\nvery interesting.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"_Enter Lady FALCONBRIDGE and JAMES GURNEY._\n\nBAST. O me! it is my mother:--How now, good lady?\nWhat brings you here to court so hastily?\n\nLADY F. Where is that slave, thy brother? where is he?\nThat holds in chase mine honour up and down?\n\nBAST. My brother Robert? Old Sir Robert's son?\nColbrand the giant, that same mighty man?\nIs it Sir Robert's son that you seek so?\n\nLADY F. Sir Robert's son! Ay, thou unreverend boy,\nSir Robert's son: why scorn'st thou at Sir Robert?\nHe is Sir Robert's son; and so art thou.\n\nBAST. James Gurney, wilt thou give us leave a while?\n\nGUR. _Good leave, good Philip._\n\nBAST. Philip?--Sparrow! James,\nThere's toys abroad; anon I'll tell thee more.\n\n[_Exit_ GURNEY.\"\n\nThe very _exit Gurney_ is a stroke of James's character.--ED.]]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe latest book of travels I know, written in the spirit of the old\ntravellers, is Bartram's account of his tour in the Floridas. It is a work\nof high merit every way.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, East and West Florida,\nthe Cherokee Country, the extensive territories of the Muscogulges, or\nCreek Confederacy, and the Country of the Chactaws, &c. By William\nBartram.\" Philadelphia, 1791. London, 1792. 8vo. The expedition was made at\nthe request of Dr. Fothergill, the Quaker  physician, in 1773, and was\nparticularly directed to botanical discoveries.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_March_ 13. 1827.\n\nTHE UNDERSTANDING.\n\n\nA pun will sometimes facilitate explanation, as thus;--the Understanding is\nthat which _stands under_ the phenomenon, and gives it objectivity. You\nknow _what_ a thing is by it. It is also worthy of remark, that the Hebrew\nword for the understanding, _Bineh_, comes from a root meaning _between_ or\n_distinguishing_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_March_ 18. 1827.\n\nPARTS OF SPEECH.--GRAMMAR.\n\n\nThere are seven parts of speech, and they agree with the five grand and\nuniversal divisions into which all things finite, by which I  mean to\nexclude the idea of God, will be found to fall; that is, as you will often\nsee it stated in my writings, especially in the Aids to Reflection[1]:--\n\n                 Prothesis.\n                     1.\n    Thesis.      Mesothesis.     Antithesis.\n       2.            4.              3.\n                 Synthesis.\n                     5.\n\nConceive it thus:--\n\n1. Prothesis, the noun-verb, or verb-substantive, _I am_, which is the\nprevious form, and implies identity of being and act.\n\n2. Thesis, the noun.\n\n3. Antithesis, the verb.\n\nNote, each of these may be converted; that is, they are only opposed to\neach other.\n\n4. Mesothesis, the infinitive mood, or the indifference of the verb and\nnoun, it being either the one or the other, or both at the same time, in\ndifferent relations.\n\n5. Synthesis, the participle, or the community of verb and noun; being and\nacting at once.\n\nNow, modify the noun by the verb, that is, by an act, and you have--\n\n6. The adnoun, or adjective.\n\nModify the verb by the noun, that is, by being, and you have--\n\n7. The adverb.\n\nInterjections are parts of sound, not of speech. Conjunctions are the same\nas prepositions; but they are prefixed to a sentence, or to a member of a\nsentence, instead of to a single word.\n\nThe inflections of nouns are modifications as to place; the inflections of\nverbs, as to time.\n\nThe genitive case denotes dependence; the dative, transmission. It is\nabsurd to talk of verbs governing. In Thucydides, I believe, every case has\nbeen found absolute.[2]\n\n\nDative:--[Greek: ----]\nThuc.VIII. 24. This is the Latin usage.\n\nAccusative.--I do not remember an instance of the proper accusative\nabsolute in Thucydides; but it seems not uncommon in other authors:\n[Greek: ----]\n\nYet all such instances may be nominatives; for I cannot find an example of\nthe accusative absolute in the masculine or feminine gender, where the\ndifference of inflexion would show the case.--ED.]\n\nThe inflections of the tenses of a verb are formed by adjuncts of the verb\nsubstantive. In Greek it is obvious. The E is the prefix significative of a\npast time.\n\n[Footnote 1: P. 170. 2d edition.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nNominative absolute:--[Greek: theon de phozos ae anthropon nomos, oudeis\napeirge, to men krinontes en homoio kai sezein kai mae--ton de\nhamartaematon.]--Thuc. II. 53.]\n\n\n\n_June 15. 1827.\n\nMAGNETISM.--ELECTRICITY.--GALVANISM.\n\nPerhaps the attribution or analogy may seem fanciful at first sight, but I\nam in the habit of realizing to myself Magnetism as length; Electricity as\nbreadth or surface; and Galvanism as depth.\n\n\n\n_June 24. 1827._\n\nSPENSER.--CHARACTER Of OTHELLO.--HAMLET.--POLONIUS.--PRINCIPLES AND\nMAXIMS.--LOVE.--MEASURE FOR MEASURE.--BEN JONSON.--BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER.--\nVERSION OF THE BIBLE.--SPURZHEIM.--CRANIOLOGY.\n\nSpenser's Epithalamion is truly sublime; and pray mark the swan-like\nmovement of his exquisite Prothalamion. [1] His attention to metre and\nrhythm is sometimes so extremely minute as to be painful even to my ear,\nand you know how highly I prize good versification.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nHow well I remember this Midsummer-day! I shall never pass such another.\nThe sun was setting behind Caen Wood, and the calm of the evening was so\nexceedingly deep that it arrested Mr. Coleridge's attention. We were alone\ntogether in Mr. Gillman's drawing-room, and Mr. C. left off talking, and\nfell into an almost trance-like state for ten minutes whilst contemplating\nthe beautiful prospect before us. His eyes swam in tears, his head inclined\na little forward, and there was a slight uplifting of the fingers, which\nseemed to tell me that he was in prayer. I was awestricken, and remained\nabsorbed in looking at the man, in forgetfulness of external nature, when\nhe recovered himself, and after a word or two fell by some secret link of\nassociation upon Spenser's poetry. Upon my telling him that I did not very\nwell recollect the Prothalamion: \"Then I must read you a bit of it,\" said\nhe; and, fetching the book from the next room, he recited the whole of it\nin his finest and most musical manner. I particularly bear in mind the\nsensible diversity of tone and rhythm with which he gave:--\n\n  \"Sweet Thames! run softly till I end my song,\"\n\nthe concluding line of each of the ten strophes of the poem.\n\nWhen I look upon the scanty memorial, which I have alone preserved of this\nafternoon's converse, I am tempted to burn these pages in despair. Mr.\nColeridge talked a volume of criticism that day, which, printed verbatim as\nhe spoke it, would have made the reputation of any other person but\nhimself. He was, indeed, particularly brilliant and enchanting; and I left\nhim at night so thoroughly _magnetized_, that I could not for two or three\ndays afterwards reflect enough to put any thing on paper,--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have often told you that I do not think there is any jealousy, properly\nso called, in the character of Othello. There is no predisposition to\nsuspicion, which I take to be an essential term in the definition of the\nword. Desdemona very truly told Emilia that he was not jealous, that is, of\na jealous habit, and he says so as truly of himself. Iago's suggestions,\nyou see, are quite new to him; they do not correspond with any thing of a\nlike nature previously in his mind. If Desdemona had, in fact, been guilty,\nno one would have thought of calling Othello's conduct that of a jealous\nman. He could not act otherwise than he did with the lights he had; whereas\njealousy can never be strictly right. See how utterly unlike Othello is to\nLeontes, in the Winter's Tale, or even to Leonatus, in Cymbeline! The\njealousy of the first proceeds from an evident trifle, and something like\nhatred is mingled with it; and the conduct of Leonatus in accepting the\nwager, and exposing his wife to the trial, denotes a jealous temper already\nformed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHamlet's character is the prevalence of the abstracting and generalizing\nhabit over the practical. He does not want courage, skill, will, or\nopportunity; but every incident sets him thinking; and it is curious, and\nat the same time strictly natural, that Hamlet, who all the play seems\nreason itself, should he impelled, at last, by mere accident to effect his\nobject. I have a smack of Hamlet myself, if I may say so.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA Maxim is a conclusion upon observation of matters of fact, and is merely\nretrospective: an Idea, or, if you like, a Principle, carries knowledge\nwithin itself, and is prospective. Polonius is a man of maxims. Whilst he\nis descanting on matters of past experience, as in that excellent speech to\nLaertes before he sets out on his travels, he is admirable; but when he\ncomes to advise or project, he is a mere dotard. [1] You see Hamlet, as the\nman of ideas, despises him.\n\n[Footnote 1: Act i. sc. 3]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA man of maxims only is like a Cyclops with one eye, and that eye placed in\nthe back of his head.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the scene with Ophelia, in the third act,[1] Hamlet is beginning with\ngreat and unfeigned tenderness; but, perceiving her reserve and coyness,\nfancies there are some listeners, and then, to sustain his part, breaks out\ninto all that coarseness.\n\nLove is the admiration and cherishing of the amiable qualities of the\nbeloved person, upon the condition of yourself being the object of their\naction. The qualities of the sexes correspond. The man's courage is loved\nby the woman, whose fortitude again is coveted by the man. His vigorous\nintellect is answered by her infallible tact. Can it be true, what is so\nconstantly affirmed, that there is no sex in souls?--I doubt it, I doubt it\nexceedingly. [2]\n\n[Footnote 1: Sc. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mr. Coleridge was a great master in the art of love, but he\nhad not studied in Ovid's school. Hear his account of the matter:--\n\n\"Love, truly such, is itself not the most common thing in the world, and\nmutual love still less so. But that enduring personal attachment, so\nbeautifully delineated by Erin's sweet melodist, and still more touchingly,\nperhaps, in the well-known ballad, 'John Anderson, my Jo, John,' in\naddition to a depth and constancy of character of no every-day occurrence,\nsupposes a peculiar sensibility and tenderness of nature; a constitutional\ncommunicativeness and utterancy of heart and soul; a delight in the detail\nof sympathy, in the outward and visible signs of the sacrament within,--to\ncount, as it were, the pulses of the life of love. But, above all, it\nsupposes a soul which, even in the pride and summer-tide of life, even in\nthe lustihood of health and strength, had felt oftenest and prized highest\nthat which age cannot take away, and which in all our lovings is _the_\nlove; I mean, that willing sense of the unsufficingness of the self for\nitself, which predisposes a generous nature to see, in the total being of\nanother, the supplement and completion of its own; that quiet perpetual\nseeking which the presence of the beloved object modulates, not suspends,\nwhere the heart momently finds, and, finding again, seeks on; lastly, when\n'life's changeful orb has passed the full,' a confirmed faith in the\nnobleness of humanity, thus brought home and pressed, as it were, to the\nvery bosom of hourly experience; it supposes, I say, a heartfelt reverence\nfor worth, not the less deep because divested of its solemnity by habit, by\nfamiliarity, by mutual infirmities, and even by a feeling of modesty which\nwill arise in delicate minds, when they are conscious of possessing the\nsame, or the correspondent, excellence in their own characters. In short,\nthere must be a mind, which, while it feels the beautiful and the excellent\nin the beloved as its own, and by right of love appropriates it, can call\ngoodness its playfellow; and dares make sport of time and infirmity, while,\nin the person of a thousand-foldly endeared partner, we feel for aged\nvirtue the caressing fondness that belongs to the innocence of childhood,\nand repeat the same attentions and tender courtesies which had been\ndictated by the same affection to the same object when attired in feminine\nloveliness or in manly beauty.\" (Poetical Works, vol. ii. p. 120.)--ED.]\n\nMeasure for Measure is the single exception to the delightfulness of\nShakspeare's plays. It is a hateful work, although Shakspearian throughout.\nOur feelings of justice are grossly wounded in Angelo's escape. Isabella\nherself contrives to be unamiable, and Claudio is detestable.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am inclined to consider The Fox as the greatest of Ben Jonson's works.\nBut his smaller works are full of poetry.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMonsieur Thomas and the little French Lawyer are great favourites of mine\namongst Beaumont and Fletcher's plays. How those plays overflow with wit!\nAnd yet I scarcely know a more deeply tragic scene any where than that in\nRollo, in which Edith pleads for her father's life, and then, when she\ncannot prevail, rises up and imprecates vengeance on his murderer. [1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Act iii. sc. 1.:--\n\n\"ROLLO. Hew off her hands!\n\nHAMOND. Lady, hold off!\n\nEDITH. No! hew 'em;\nHew off my innocent hands, as he commands you!\nThey'll hang the faster on for death's convulsion.--\nThou seed of rocks, will nothing move thee, then?\nAre all my tears lost, all my righteous prayers\nDrown'd in thy drunken wrath? I stand up thus, then,\nThou boldly bloody tyrant,\nAnd to thy face, in heav'n's high name defy thee!\nAnd may sweet mercy, when thy soul sighs for it,--\nWhen under thy black mischiefs thy flesh trembles,--\nWhen neither strength, nor youth, nor friends, nor gold,\nCan stay one hour; when thy most wretched conscience,\nWaked from her dream of death, like fire shall melt thee,--\nWhen all thy mother's tears, thy brother's wounds,\nThy people's fears, and curses, and my loss,\nMy aged father's loss, shall stand before thee--\n\nROLLO. Save him, I say; run, save him, save her father;\nFly and redeem his head!\n\nEDITH. May then that pity,\" &c.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOur version of the Bible is to be loved and prized for this, as for a\nthousand other things,--that it has preserved a purity of meaning to many\nterms of natural objects. Without this holdfast, our vitiated imaginations\nwould refine away language to mere abstractions. Hence the French have lost\ntheir poetical language; and Mr. Blanco White says the same thing has\nhappened to the Spanish.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have the perception of individual images very strong, but a dim one of\nthe relation of place. I remember the man or the tree, but where I saw them\nI mostly forget.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThere was no man whose opinion in morals, or even in a matter of general\nconduct in life, if you furnished the pertinent circumstances, I would have\nsooner adopted than Mr. Coleridge's; but I would not take him as a guide\nthrough streets or fields or earthly roads. He had much of the geometrician\nabout him; but he could not find his way. In this, as in many other\npeculiarities of more importance, he inherited strongly from his learned\nand excellent father, who deserves, and will, I trust, obtain, a separate\nnotice for himself when his greater son's life comes to be written. I\nbelieve the beginning of Mr. C.'s liking for Dr. Spurzheim was the hearty\ngood humour with which the Doctor bore the laughter of a party, in the\npresence of which he, unknowing of his man, denied any _Ideality_, and\nawarded an unusual share of _Locality_, to the majestic silver-haired head\nof my dear uncle and father-in-law. But Mr. Coleridge immediately shielded\nthe craniologist under the distinction preserved in the text, and perhaps,\nsince that time, there may be a couple of organs assigned to the latter\nfaculty.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCraniology is worth some consideration, although it is merely in its\nrudiments and guesses yet. But all the coincidences which have been\nobserved could scarcely be by accident. The confusion and absurdity,\nhowever, will be endless until some names or proper terms are discovered\nfor the organs, which are not taken from their mental application or\nsignificancy. The forepart of the head is generally given up to the higher\nintellectual powers; the hinder part to the sensual emotions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSilence does not always mark wisdom. I was at dinner, some time ago, in\ncompany with a man, who listened to me and said nothing for a long time;\nbut he nodded his head, and I thought him intelligent. At length, towards\nthe end of the dinner, some apple dumplings were placed on the table, and\nmy man had no sooner seen them, than he burst forth with--\"Them's the\njockies for me!\" I wish Spurzheim could have examined the fellow's head.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome folks apply epithets as boys do in making Latin verses. When I first\nlooked upon the Falls of the Clyde, I was unable to find a word to express\nmy feelings. At last, a man, a stranger to me, who arrived about the same\ntime, said:--\"How majestic!\"--(It was the precise term, and I turned round\nand was saying--\"Thank you, Sir! that _is_ the exact word for it\"--when he\nadded, _eodem flatu_)--\"Yes! how very _pretty_!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_July_ 8. 1827.\n\nBULL AND WATERLAND.--THE TRINITY.\n\nBull and Waterland are the classical writers on the Trinity.[1]\n\nIn the Trinity there is, 1. Ipseity. 2. Alterity. 3. Community. You may\nexpress the formula thus:--\n\nGod, the absolute Will or Identity, = Prothesis. The Father = Thesis. The\nSon = Antithesis. The Spirit = Synthesis.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge's admiration of Bull and Waterland as high theologians was\nvery great. Bull he used to read in the Latin Defensio Fidei Nicaenae,\nusing the Jesuit Zola's edition of 1784, which, I think, he bought at Rome.\nHe told me once, that when he was reading a Protestant English Bishop's\nwork on the Trinity, in a copy edited by an Italian Jesuit in Italy, he\nfelt proud of the church of England, and in good humour with the church of\nRome.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe author of the Athanasian Creed is unknown. It is, in my judgment,\nheretical in the omission, or implicit denial, of the Filial subordination\nin the Godhead, which is the doctrine of the Nicene Creed, and for which\nBull and Waterland have so fervently and triumphantly contended; and by not\nholding to which, Sherlock staggered to and fro between Tritheism and\nSabellianism. This creed is also tautological, and, if not persecuting,\nwhich I will not discuss, certainly containing harsh and ill-conceived\nlanguage.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow much I regret that so many religious persons of the present day think\nit necessary to adopt a certain cant of manner and phraseology as a token\nto each other. They must _improve_ this and that text, and they must do so\nand so in a _prayerful_ way; and so on. Why not use common language? A\nyoung lady the other day urged upon me that such and such feelings were the\n_marrow_ of all religion; upon which I recommended her to try to walk to\nLondon upon her marrow-bones only.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_July_ 9. 1827.\n\nSCALE OF ANIMAL BEING.\n\n\nIn the very lowest link in the vast and mysterious chain of Being, there is\nan effort, although scarcely apparent, at individualization; but it is\nalmost lost in the mere nature. A little higher up, the individual is\napparent and separate, but subordinate to any thing in man. At length, the\nanimal rises to be on a par with the lowest power of the human nature.\nThere are some of our natural desires which only remain in our most perfect\nstate on earth as means of the higher powers' acting.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThese remarks seem to call for a citation of that wonderful passage,\ntranscendant alike in eloquence and philosophic depth, which the readers of\nthe Aids to Reflection have long since laid up in cedar:--\n\n\"Every rank of creatures, as it ascends in the scale of creation, leaves\ndeath behind it or under it. The metal at its height of being seems a mute\nprophecy of the coming vegetation, into a mimic semblance of which it\ncrystallizes. The blossom and flower, the acme of vegetable life, divides\ninto correspondent organs with reciprocal functions, and by instinctive\nmotions and approximations seems impatient of that fixture, by which it is\ndifferenced in kind from the flower-shaped Psyche that flutters with free\nwing above it. And wonderfully in the insect realm doth the irritability,\nthe proper seat of instinct, while yet the nascent sensibility is\nsubordinate thereto,--most wonderfully, I say, doth the muscular life in\nthe insect, and the musculo-arterial in the bird, imitate and typically\nrehearse the adaptive understanding, yea, and the moral affections and\ncharities of man. Let us carry ourselves back, in spirit, to the mysterious\nweek, the teeming work-days of the Creator, as they rose in vision before\nthe eye of the inspired historian \"of the generations of the heaven and\nearth, in the days that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.\" And\nwho that hath watched their ways with an understanding heart, could, as the\nvision evolving still advanced towards him, contemplate the filial and\nloyal bee; the home building, wedded, and divorceless swallow; and, above\nall, the manifoldly intelligent ant tribes, with their commonwealth and\nconfederacies, their warriors and miners, the husband-folk, that fold in\ntheir tiny flocks on the honied leaf, and the virgin sisters with the holy\ninstincts of maternal love, detached and in selfless purity, and not say to\nhimself, Behold the shadow of approaching Humanity, the sun rising from\nbehind, in the kindling morn of creation! Thus all lower natures find their\nhighest good in semblances and seekings of that which is higher and better.\nAll things strive to ascend, and ascend in their striving. And shall man\nalone stoop? Shall his pursuits and desires, the reflections of his inward\nlife, be like the reflected image of a tree on the edge of a pool, that\ngrows downward, and seeks a mock heaven in the unstable element beneath it,\nin neighbourhood with the slim water-weeds and oozy bottom-grass that are\nyet better than itself and more noble, in as far as substances that appear\nas shadows are preferable to shadows mistaken for substance? No! it must be\na higher good to make you happy. While you labour for any thing below your\nproper humanity, you seek a happy life in the region of death. Well saith\nthe moral poet:--\n\n            'Unless above himself he can\n  Erect himself, how mean a thing is man!'\"\n\nP. 105. 2d ed.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\nJuly 12. 1827.\n\n\nPOPEDOM.--SCANDERBEG.--THOMAS \u00c0 BECKET.--PURE AGES OF GREEK, ITALIAN, AND\nENGLISH.--LUTHER.--BAXTER.--ALGERNON SIDNEY'S STYLE.--ARIOSTO AND TASSO.--\nPROSE AND POETRY.--THE FATHERS.--RHENFERD.--JACOB BEHMEN.\n\nWhat a grand subject for a history the Popedom is! The Pope ought never to\nhave affected temporal sway, but to have lived retired within St. Angelo,\nand to have trusted to the superstitious awe inspired by his character and\noffice. He spoiled his chance when he meddled in the petty Italian\npolitics.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nScanderbeg would be a very fine subject for Walter Scott; and so would\nThomas \u00e0 Becket, if it is not rather too much for him. It involves in\nessence the conflict between arms, or force, and the men of letters.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nObserve the superior truth of language, in Greek, to Theocritus\ninclusively; in Latin, to the Augustan age exclusively; in Italian, to\nTasso exclusively; and in English, to Taylor and Barrow inclusively.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLuther is, in parts, the most evangelical writer I know, after the apostles\nand apostolic men.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPray read with great attention Baxter's Life of himself. It is an\ninestimable work. [1] I may not unfrequently doubt Baxter's memory, or even\nhis competence, in consequence of his particular modes of thinking; but I\ncould almost as soon doubt the Gospel verity as his veracity.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis, a very thick folio of the old sort, was one of Mr. Coleridge's text\nbooks for English church history. He used to say that there was _no_\nsubstitute for it in a course of study for a clergyman or public man, and\nthat the modern political Dissenters, who affected to glory in Baxter as a\nleader, would read a bitter lecture on themselves in every page of it. In a\nmarginal note I find Mr. C. writing thus: \"Alas! in how many respects does\nmy lot resemble Baxter's! But how much less have my bodily evils been, and\nyet how very much greater an impediment have I suffered them to be! But\nverily Baxter's labours seem miracles of supporting grace.\"--ED.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am not enough read in Puritan divinity to know the particular objections\nto the surplice, over and above the general prejudice against the _retenta_\nof Popery. Perhaps that was the only ground,--a foolish one enough.\n\n\nIn my judgment Bolingbroke's style is not in any respect equal to that of\nCowley or Dryden. Read Algernon Sidney; his style reminds you as little of\nbooks as of blackguards. What a gentleman he was!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBurke's Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful seems to me a poor thing; and\nwhat he says upon Taste is neither profound nor accurate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWell! I am for Ariosto against Tasso; though I would rather praise Aristo's\npoetry than his poem.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI wish our clever young poets would remember my homely definitions of prose\nand poetry; that is, prose = words in their best order;--poetry = the\n_best_ words in the best order.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI conceive Origen, Jerome, and Augustine to be the three great fathers in\nrespect of theology, and Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom in\nrespect of rhetoric.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRhenferd possessed the immense learning and robust sense of Selden, with\nthe acuteness and wit of Jortin.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJacob Behmen remarked, that it was not wonderful that there were separate\nlanguages for England, France, Germany, &c.; but rather that there was not\na different language for every degree of latitude. In confirmation of\nwhich, see the infinite variety of languages amongst the barbarous tribes\nof South America.\n\n\n\n\n_July_ 20. 1827.\n\nNON-PERCEPTION OF COLOURS.\n\n\nWhat is said of some persons not being able to distinguish colours, I\nbelieve. It may proceed from general weakness, which will render the\ndifferences imperceptible, just as the dusk or twilight makes all colours\none. This defect is most usual in the blue ray, the negative pole.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI conjecture that when finer experiments have been applied, the red,\nyellow, and orange rays will be found as capable of communicating magnetic\naction as the other rays, though, perhaps, under different circumstances.\nRemember this, if you are alive twenty years hence, and think of me.\n\n\n\n\n_July_ 21. 1827.\n\nRESTORATION.--REFORMATION.\n\n\nThe elements had been well shaken together during the civil wars and\ninterregnum under the Long Parliament and Protectorate; and nothing but the\ncowardliness and impolicy of the Nonconformists, at the Restoration, could\nhave prevented a real reformation on a wider basis. But the truth is, by\ngoing over to Breda with their stiff flatteries to the hollow-hearted King,\nthey put Sheldon and the bishops on the side of the constitution.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Reformation in the sixteenth century narrowed Reform. As soon as men\nbegan to call themselves names, all hope of further amendment was lost.\n\n\n\n\n_July_ 23. 1827.\n\nWILLIAM III.--BERKELEY.--SPINOSA.--GENIUS.--ENVY.--LOVE.\n\n\nWilliam the Third was a greater and much honester man than any of his\nministers. I believe every one of them, except Shrewsbury, has now been\ndetected in correspondence with James.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBerkeley can only be confuted, or answered, by one sentence. So it is with\nSpinosa. His premiss granted, the deduction is a chain of adamant.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGenius may co-exist with wildness, idleness, folly, even with crime; but\nnot long, believe me, with selfishness, and the indulgence of an envious\ndisposition. Envy is *[Greek: kakistos kai dikaiotatos theos], as I once\nsaw it expressed somewhere in a page of Stobaeus: it dwarfs and withers its\nworshippers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe man's desire is for the woman; but the woman's desire is rarely other\nthan for the desire of the man.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"A woman's friendship,\" I find written by Mr. C. on a page dyed red with an\nimprisoned rose-leaf, \"a woman's friendship borders more closely on love\nthan man's. Men affect each other in the reflection of noble or friendly\nacts; whilst women ask fewer proofs, and more signs and expressions of\nattachment.\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n\nAugust 29. 1827.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.--HOOKER.--IDEAS.--KNOWLEDGE.\n\n\nJeremy Taylor is an excellent author for a young man to study, for the\npurpose of imbibing noble principles, and at the same time of learning to\nexercise caution and thought in detecting his numerous errors.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI must acknowledge, with some hesitation, that I think Hooker has been a\nlittle over-credited for his judgment.\n\nTake as an instance of an idea the continuity and coincident distinctness\nof nature; or this,--vegetable life is always striving to be something that\nit is not; animal life to be itself.[1] Hence, in a plant the parts, as the\nroot, the stem, the branches, leaves, &c. remain after they have each\nproduced or contributed to produce a different _status_ of the whole plant:\nin an animal nothing of the previous states remains distinct, but is\nincorporated into, and constitutes progressively, the very self.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe reader who has never studied Plato, Bacon, Kant, or Coleridge in their\nphilosophic works, will need to be told that the word Idea is not used in\nthis passage in the sense adopted by \"Dr. Holofernes, who in a lecture on\nmetaphysics, delivered at one of the Mechanics' Institutions, explodes all\n_ideas_ but those of sensation; whilst his friend, deputy Costard, has no\n_idea_ of a better-flavoured haunch of venison, than he dined off at the\nLondon Tavern last week. He admits (for the deputy has travelled) that the\nFrench have an excellent _idea_ of cooking in general; but holds that their\nmost accomplished _ma\u00eetres de cuisine_ have no more _idea_ of dressing a\nturtle, than the Parisian gourmands themselves have any _real idea_ of the\ntrue _taste_ and _colour_ of the fat.\" Church and State, p. 78. No! what\nMr. Coleridge meant by an idea in this place may be expressed in various\nways out of his own works. I subjoin a sufficient definition from the\nChurch and State, p. 6. \"That which, contemplated _objectively_, (that is,\nas existing _externally_ to the mind,) we call a law; the same contemplated\n_subjectively_, (that is, as existing in a subject or mind,) is an idea.\nHence Plato often names Ideas, Laws; and Lord Bacon, the British Plato,\ndescribes the laws of the material universe as the ideas in nature. \"Quod\nin natura _naturata_ Lex, in natura _naturante_ Idea dicitur.\" A more\nsubtle limitation of the word may be found in the last paragraph of Essay\n(E) in the Appendix to the Statesman's Manual.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo know any thing for certain is to have a clear insight into the\ninseparability of the predicate from the subject (the matter from the\nform), and _vice vers\u00e2_. This is a verbal definition,--a _real_ definition\nof a thing absolutely known is impossible. I _know_ a circle, when I\nperceive that the equality of all possible radii from the centre to the\ncircumference is inseparable from the idea of a circle.\n\n\n_August_ 30. 1827.\n\nPAINTING.\n\nPainting is the intermediate somewhat between a thought and a thing.\n\n\n\n\nApril 13. 1830.\n\n\nPROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.--MESSIAH.--JEWS.--THE TRINITY.\n\nIf the prophecies of the Old Testament are not rightly interpreted of Jesus\nour Christ, then there is no prediction whatever contained in it of that\nstupendous event--the rise and establishment of Christianity--in comparison\nwith which all the preceding Jewish history is as nothing. With the\nexception of the book of Daniel, which the Jews themselves never classed\namong the prophecies, and an obscure text of Jeremiah, there is not a\npassage in all the Old Testament which favours the notion of a temporal\nMessiah. What moral object was there, for which such a Messiah should come?\nWhat could he have been but a sort of virtuous Sesostris or Buonaparte?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI know that some excellent men--Israelites without guile--do not, in fact,\nexpect the advent of any Messiah; but believe, or suggest, that it may\npossibly have been God's will and meaning, that the Jews should remain a\nquiet light among the nations for the purpose of pointing at the doctrine\nof the unity of God. To which I say, that this truth of the essential unity\nof God has been preserved, and gloriously preached, by Christianity alone.\nThe Romans never shut up their temples, nor ceased to worship a hundred or\na thousand gods and goddesses, at the bidding of the Jews; the Persians,\nthe Hindus, the Chinese, learned nothing of this great truth from the Jews.\nBut from Christians they did learn it in various degrees, and are still\nlearning it. The religion of the Jews is, indeed, a light; but it is as the\nlight of the glow-worm, which gives no heat, and illumines nothing but\nitself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nIt has been objected to me, that the vulgar notions of the Trinity are at\nvariance with this doctrine; and it was added, whether as flattery or\nsarcasm matters not, that few believers in the Trinity thought of it as I\ndid. To which again humbly, yet confidently, I reply, that my superior\nlight, if superior, consists in nothing more than this,--that I more\nclearly see that the doctrine of Trinal Unity is an absolute truth\ntranscending my human means of understanding it, or demonstrating it. I may\nor may not be able to utter the formula of my faith in this mystery in more\nlogical terms than some others; but this I say, Go and ask the most\nordinary man, a professed believer in this doctrine, whether he believes in\nand worships a plurality of Gods, and he will start with horror at the bare\nsuggestion. He may not be able to explain his creed in exact terms; but he\nwill tell you that he _does_ believe in one God, and in one God only,--\nreason about it as you may.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat all the churches of the East and West, what Romanist and Protestant\nbelieve in common, that I call Christianity. In no proper sense of the word\ncan I call Unitarians and Socinians believers in Christ; at least, not in\nthe only Christ of whom I have read or know any thing.\n\n\nApril 14, 1830.\n\nCONVERSION OF THE JEWS.--JEWS IN POLAND.\n\nThere is no hope of converting the Jews in the way and with the spirit\nunhappily adopted by our church; and, indeed, by all other modern churches.\nIn the first age, the Jewish Christians undoubtedly considered themselves\nas the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise had been made; and, as such, a\nsuperior order. Witness the account of St. Peter's conduct in the Acts [1],\nand the Epistle to the Galatians.[2] St. Paul protested against this, so\nfar as it went to make Jewish observances compulsory on Christians who were\nnot of Jewish blood, and so far as it in any way led to bottom the religion\non the Mosaic covenant of works; but he never denied the birthright of the\nchosen seed: on the contrary, he himself evidently believed that the Jews\nwould ultimately be restored; and he says,--If the Gentiles have been so\nblest by the rejection of the Jews, how much rather shall they be blest by\nthe conversion and restoration of Israel! Why do we expect the Jews to\nabandon their national customs and distinctions? The Abyssinian church said\nthat they claimed a descent from Abraham; and that, in virtue of such\nancestry, they observed circumcision: but declaring withal, that they\nrejected the covenant of works, and rested on the promise fulfilled in\nJesus Christ. In consequence of this appeal, the Abyssinians were permitted\nto retain their customs.\n\nIf Rhenferd's Essays were translated--if the Jews were made acquainted with\nthe real argument--if they were addressed kindly, and were not required to\nabandon their distinctive customs and national type, but were invited to\nbecome Christians _as of the seed of Abraham_--I believe there would be a\nChristian synagogue in a year's time. As it is, the Jews of the lower\norders are the very lowest of mankind; they have not a principle of honesty\nin them; to grasp and be getting money for ever is their single and\nexclusive occupation. A learned Jew once said to me, upon this subject:--\"O\nSir! make the inhabitants of Hollywell Street and Duke's Place Israelites\nfirst, and then we may debate about making them Christians.\"[3]\n\nIn Poland, the Jews are great landholders, and are the worst of tyrants.\nThey have no kind of sympathy with their labourers and dependants. They\nnever meet them in common worship. Land, in the hand of a large number of\nJews, instead of being, what it ought to be, the organ of permanence, would\nbecome the organ of rigidity, in a nation; by their intermarriages within\ntheir own pale, it would be in fact perpetually entailed. Then, again, if a\npopular tumult were to take place in Poland, who can doubt that the Jews\nwould be the first objects of murder and spoliation?\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. xv.]\n\n[Footnote 2 : Chap. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\nMr. Coleridge had a very friendly acquaintance with several learned Jews in\nthis country, and he told me that, whenever he had fallen in with a Jew of\nthorough education and literary habits, he had always found him possessed\nof a strong natural capacity for metaphysical disquisitions. I may mention\nhere the best known of his Jewish friends, one whom he deeply respected,\nHyman Hurwitz.--ED.]\n\nApril 17. 1830.\n\n\nMOSAIC MIRACLES.--PANTHEISM.\n\nIn the miracles of Moses, there is a remarkable intermingling of acts,\nwhich we should now-a-days call simply providential, with such as we should\nstill call miraculous. The passing of the Jordan, in the 3d chapter of the\nbook of Joshua, is perhaps the purest and sheerest miracle recorded in the\nBible; it seems to have been wrought for the miracle's sake, and so thereby\nto show to the Jews--the descendants of those who had come out of Egypt--\nthat the _same_ God who had appeared to their fathers, and who had by\nmiracles, in many respects providential only, preserved them in the\nwilderness, was _their_ God also. The manna and quails were ordinary\nprovisions of Providence, rendered miraculous by certain laws and qualities\nannexed to them in the particular instance. The passage of the Red Sea was\neffected by a strong wind, which, we are told, drove hack the waters; and\nso on. But then, again, the death of the first-born was purely miraculous.\nHence, then, both Jews and Egyptians might take occasion to learn, that it\nwas _one and the same God_ who interfered specially, and who governed all\ngenerally.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTake away the first verse of the hook of Genesis, and then what immediately\nfollows is an exact history or sketch of Pantheism. Pantheism was taught in\nthe mysteries of Greece; of which the Samothracian or Cabeiric were\nprobably the purest and the most ancient.\n\n\n\n\n_April_ 18. 1830.\n\n\nPOETIC PROMISE.\n\nIn the present age it is next to impossible to predict from specimens,\nhowever favourable, that a young man will turn out a great poet, or rather\na poet at all. Poetic taste, dexterity in composition, and ingenious\nimitation, often produce poems that are very promising in appearance. But\ngenius, or the power of doing something new, is another thing. Mr.\nTennyson's sonnets, such as I have seen, have many of the characteristic\nexcellencies of those of Wordsworth and Southey.\n\n\n\n_April 19. 1830._\n\n\nIt is a small thing that the patient knows of his own state; yet some\nthings he _does_ know better than his physician.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never had, and never could feel, any horror at death, simply as death.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGood and bad men are each less so than they seem.\n\n\n\n\n_April 30. 1830._\n\n\nNOMINALISTS AND REALISTS.--BRITISH SCHOOLMEN.--SPINOSA.\n\nThe result of my system will be, to show, that, so far from the world being\na goddess in petticoats, it is rather the Devil in a strait waistcoat.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe controversy of the Nominalists and Realists was one of the greatest and\nmost important that ever occupied the human mind. They were both right, and\nboth wrong. They each maintained opposite poles of the same truth; which\ntruth neither of them saw, for want of a higher premiss. Duns Scotus was\nthe head of the Realists; Ockham,[1] his own disciple, of the Nominalists.\nOckham, though certainly very prolix, is a most extraordinary writer.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nJohn Duns Scotus was born in 1274, at Dunstone in the parish of Emildune,\nnear Alnwick. He was a fellow of Merton College, and Professor of Divinity\nat Oxford. After acquiring an uncommon reputation at his own university, he\nwent to Paris, and thence to Cologne, and there died in 1308, at the early\nage of thirty-four years. He was called the Subtle Doctor, and found time\nto compose works which now fill twelve volumes in folio. See the Lyons\nedition, by Luke Wadding, in 1639.\n\nWilliam Ockham was an Englishman, and died about 1347; but the place and\nyear of his birth are not clearly ascertained. He was styled the Invincible\nDoctor, and wrote bitterly against Pope John XXII. We all remember Butler's\naccount of these worthies:--\n\n  \"He knew what's what, and that's as high\n  As metaphysic wit can fly;\n  In school divinity as able\n  As he that hight Irrefragable,\n  A second Thomas, or at once\n  To name them all, another _Dunse_;\n  Profound in all the Nominal\n  And Real ways beyond them all;\n  For he a rope of sand could twist\n  As tough as learned Sorbonist.\"\n      HUDIBRAS. Part I. Canto I. v. 149.\n\nThe Irrefragable Doctor was Alexander Hales, a native of Gloucestershire,\nwho died in 1245. Amongst his pupils at Paris, was Fidanza, better known by\nthe name of Bonaventura, the Seraphic Doctor. The controversy of the\nRealists and the Nominalists cannot he explained in a note; but in\nsubstance the original point of dispute may be thus stated. The Realists\nheld _generally_ with Aristotle, that there were universal _ideas_ or\nessences impressed upon matter, and cov\u00ebal with, and inherent in, their\nobjects. Plato held that these universal forms existed as exemplars in the\ndivine mind previously to, and independently of, matter; but both\nmaintained, under one shape or other, the real existence of universal\nforms. On the other hand, Zeno and the old Stoics denied the existence of\nthese universals, and contended that they were no more than mere tenms and\nnominal representatives of their particular objects. The Nominalists were\nthe followers of Zeno, and held that universal forms are merely modes of\nconception, and exist solely in and for the mind. It does not require much\nreflection to see how great an influence these different systems might have\nupon the enunciation of the higher doctrines of Christianity.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is remarkable, that two thirds of the eminent schoolmen were of British\nbirth. It was the schoolmen who made the languages of Europe what they now\nare. We laugh at the quiddities of those writers now, but, in truth, these\nquiddities are just the parts of their language which we have rejected;\nwhilst we never think of the mass which we have adopted, and have in daily\nuse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne of the scholastic definitions of God is this,--_Deus est, cui omne quod\nest est esse omne quod est:_ as long a sentence made up of as few words,\nand those as oligosyllabic, as any I remember. By the by, that\n_oligosyllabic_ is a word happily illustrative of its own meaning, _ex\nopposito_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSpinosa, at the very end of his life, seems to have gained a glimpse of the\ntruth. In the last letter published in his works, it appears that he began\nto suspect his premiss. His _unica substantia_ is, in fact, a mere notion,\n--a _subject_ of the mind, and no _object_ at all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPlato's works are preparatory exercises for the mind. He leads you to see,\nthat propositions involving in themselves contradictory conceptions, are\nnevertheless true; and which, therefore, must belong to a higher logic--\nthat of ideas. They are contradictory only in the Aristotelian logic, which\nis the instrument of the understanding. I have read most of the works of\nPlato several times with profound attention, but not all his writings. In\nfact, I soon found that I had read Plato by anticipation. He was a\nconsummate genius.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"This is the test and character of a truth so affirmed (--a truth of the\nreason, an Idea)--that in its own proper form it is _inconceivable_. For to\n_conceive_, is a function of the understanding, which can he exercised only\non subjects subordinate thereto. And yet to the forms of the understanding\nall truth must be reduced, that is to be fixed as an object of reflection,\nand to be rendered _expressible_. And here we have a second test and sign\nof a truth so affirmed, that it can come forth out of the moulds of the\nunderstanding only in the disguise of two contradictory conceptions, each\nof which is partially true, and the conjunction of both conceptions becomes\nthe representative or _expression_ (--the _exponent_) of a truth beyond\nconception and inexpressible. Examples: _before_ Abraham WAS, I AM. God is\na circle, the centre of which is every where, and the circumference no\nwhere. The soul is all in every part.\" Aids to Reflection, n. 224.n. See\nalso _Church and State_, p. 12.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMy mind is in a state of philosophical doubt as to animal magnetism. Von\nSpix, the eminent naturalist, makes no doubt of the matter, and talks\ncoolly of giving doses of it. The torpedo affects a third or external\nobject, by an exertion of its own will: such a power is not properly\nelectrical; for electricity acts invariably under the same circumstances. A\nsteady gaze will make many persons of fair complexions blush deeply.\nAccount for that. [1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI find the following remarkable passage in p. 301. vol. i. of the richly\nannotated copy of Mr. Southey's Life of Wesley, which Mr. C. bequeathed as\nhis \"darling book and the favourite of his library\" to its great and\nhonoured author and donor:--\n\n\"The coincidence throughout of all these Methodist cases with those of the\nMagnetists makes me wish for a solution that would apply to all. Now this\nsense or appearance of a sense of the distant, both in time and space, is\ncommon to almost all the _magnetic_ patients in Denmark, Germany, France,\nand North Italy, to many of whom the same or a similar solution could not\napply. Likewise, many cases have been recorded at the same time, in\ndifferent countries, by men who had never heard of each other's names, and\nwhere the simultaneity of publication proves the independence of the\ntestimony. And among the Magnetisers and Attesters are to be found names of\nmen, whose competence in respect of integrity and incapability of\nintentional falsehood is fully equal to that of Wesley, and their\ncompetence in respect of physio- and psychological insight and attainments\nincomparably greater. Who would dream, indeed, of comparing Wesley with a\nCuvier, Hufeland, Blumenbach, Eschenmeyer, Reil, &c.? Were I asked, what\n_I_ think, my answer would be,--that the evidence enforces scepticism and a\n_non liquet_;--too strong and consentaneous for a candid mind to be\nsatisfied of its falsehood, or its solvibility on the supposition of\nimposture or casual coincidence;--too fugacious and unfixable to support\nany theory that supposes the always potential, and, under certain\nconditions and circumstances, occasionally active, existence of a\ncorrespondent faculty in the human soul. And nothing less than such an\nhypothesis would be adequate to the _satisfactory_ explanation of the\nfacts;--though that of a _metastasis_ of specific functions of the nervous\nenergy, taken in conjunction with extreme nervous excitement, _plus_ some\ndelusion, _plus_ some illusion, _plus_ some imposition, _plus_ some chance\nand accidental coincidence, might determine the direction in which the\nscepticism should vibrate. Nine years has the subject of Zoo-magnetism been\nbefore me. I have traced it historically, collected a mass of documents in\nFrench, German, Italian, and the Latinists of the sixteenth century, have\nnever neglected an opportunity of questioning eye-witnesses, _ex. gr._\nTieck, Treviranus, De Prati, Meyer, and others of literary or medical\ncelebrity, and I remain where I was, and where the first perusal of Klug's\nwork had left me, without having moved an inch backward or forward. The\nreply of Treviranus, the famous botanist, to me, when he was in London, is\nworth recording:--'Ich habe gesehen was (ich weiss das) ich nicht w\u00fcrde\ngeglaubt haben auf _ihren_ erz\u00e4hlung,' &c. 'I have seen what I am certain I\nwould not have believed on your telling; and in all reason, therefore, I\ncan neither expect nor wish that you should believe on _mine_.'\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 1. 1830.\n\n\nFALL OF MAN.--MADNESS.--BROWN AND DARWIN.--NITROUS OXIDE.\n\n\nA Fall of some sort or other--the creation, as it were, of the non-\nabsolute--is the fundamental postulate of the moral history of man. Without\nthis hypothesis, man is unintelligible; with it, every phenomenon is\nexplicable. The mystery itself is too profound for human insight.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMadness is not simply a bodily disease. It is the sleep of the spirit with\ncertain conditions of wakefulness; that is to say, lucid intervals. During\nthis sleep, or recession of the spirit, the lower or bestial states of life\nrise up into action and prominence. It is an awful thing to be eternally\ntempted by the perverted senses. The reason may resist--it does resist--for\na long time; but too often, at length, it yields for a moment, and the man\nis mad for ever. An act of the will is, in many instances, precedent to\ncomplete insanity. I think it was Bishop Butler who said, that he was \"all\nhis life struggling against the devilish suggestions of his senses,\" which\nwould have maddened him, if he had relaxed the stern wakefulness of his\nreason for a single moment.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBrown's and Darwin's theories are both ingenious; but the first will not\naccount for sleep, and the last will not account for death: considerable\ndefects, you must allow.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is said that every excitation is followed by a commensurate exhaustion.\nThat is not so. The excitation caused by inhaling nitrous oxide is an\nexception at least; it leaves no exhaustion on the bursting of the bubble.\nThe operation of this gas is to prevent the decarbonating of the blood;\nand, consequently, if taken excessively, it would produce apoplexy. The\nblood becomes black as ink. The voluptuous sensation attending the\ninhalation is produced by the compression and resistance.\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 2. 1830.\n\nPLANTS.--INSECTS.--MEN.--DOG.--ANT AND BEE.\n\n\nPlants exist _in_ themselves. Insects _by_, or by means of, themselves.\nMen, _for_ themselves. The perfection of irrational animals is that which\nis best for _them_; the perfection of man is that which is absolutely best.\nThere is growth only in plants; but there is irritability, or, a better\nword, instinctivity, in insects.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou may understand by _insect_, life in sections--diffused generally over\nall the parts.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe dog alone, of all brute animals, has a [*Greek: storgae], or affection\n_upwards_ to man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe ant and the bee are, I think, much nearer man in the understanding or\nfaculty of adapting means to proximate ends than the elephant.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI remember Mr. C. was accustomed to consider the ant, as the most\nintellectual, and the dog as the most affectionate, of the irrational\ncreatures, so far as our present acquaintance with the facts of natural\nhistory enables us to judge.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 3. 1830.\n\nBLACK COLONEL.\n\n\nWhat an excellent character is the black Colonel in Mrs. Bennett's \"Beggar\nGirl!\"[1]\n\n\nIf an inscription be put upon my tomb, it may be that I was an enthusiastic\nlover of the church; and as enthusiastic a hater of those who have betrayed\nit, be they who they may.[2]\n\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis character was frequently a subject of pleasant description and\nenlargement with Mr. Coleridge, and he generally passed from it to a high\ncommendation of Miss Austen's novels, as being in their way perfectly\ngenuine and individual productions.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nThis was a strong way of expressing a deep-rooted feeling. A better and a\ntruer character would be, that Coleridge was a lover of the church, and a\ndefender of the faith! This last expression is the utterance of a\nconviction so profound that it can patiently wait for time to prove its\ntruth.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 4. 1830.\n\nHOLLAND AND THE DUTCH.\n\n\nHolland and the Netherlands ought to be seen once, because no other country\nis like them. Every thing is artificial. You will be struck with the\ncombinations of vivid greenery, and water, and building; but every thing is\nso distinct and rememberable, that you would not improve your conception by\nvisiting the country a hundred times over. It is interesting to see a\ncountry and a nature _made_, as it were, by man, and to compare it with\nGod's nature.[1]\n\nIf you go, remark, (indeed you will be forced to do so in spite of\nyourself,) remark, I say, the identity (for it is more than proximity) of a\ndisgusting dirtiness in all that concerns the dignity of, and reverence\nfor, the human person; and a persecuting painted cleanliness in every thing\nconnected with property. You must not walk in their gardens; nay, you must\nhardly look into them.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn the summer of 1828, Mr. Coleridge made an excursion with Mr. Wordsworth\nin Holland, Flanders, and up the Rhine, as far as Bergen. He came back\ndelighted, especially with his stay near Bonn, but with an abiding disgust\nat the filthy habits of the people. Upon Cologne, in particular, he avenged\nhimself in two epigrams. See Poet. Works, vol. ii. p. 144.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Dutch seem very happy and comfortable, certainly; but it is the\nhappiness of _animals_. In vain do you look for the sweet breath of hope\nand advancement among them. [1]In fact, as to their villas and gardens,\nthey are not to be compared to an ordinary London merchant's box.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n  \"For every gift of noble origin\n  Is breathed upon by Hope's perpetual breath.\"\n                                 _Wordsworth._]\n\n\n\n\n_May 5. 1830._\n\nRELIGION GENTILIZES.--WOMEN AND MEN.--BIBLICAL COMMENTATORS.--WALKERITE\nCREED.\n\n\nYou may depend upon it, religion is, in its essence, the most gentlemanly\nthing in the world. It will _alone_ gentilize, if unmixed with cant; and I\nknow nothing else that will, _alone_. Certainly not the army, which is\nthought to be the grand embellisher of manners.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA woman's head is usually over ears in her heart. Man seems to have been\ndesigned for the superior being of the two; but as things are, I think\nwomen are generally better creatures than men. They have, taken\nuniversally, weaker appetites and weaker intellects, but they have much\nstronger affections. A man with a bad heart has been sometimes saved by a\nstrong head; but a corrupt woman is lost for ever.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never could get much information out of the biblical commentators.\nCocceius has told me the most; but he, and all of them, have a notable\ntrick of passing _siccissimis pedibus_ over the parts which puzzle a man of\nreflection.\n\nThe Walkerite creed, or doctrine of the New Church, as it is called,\nappears to be a miscellany of Calvinism and Quakerism; but it is hard to\nunderstand it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n_May_ 7, 1830.\n\nHORNE TOOKE.----DIVERSIONS OF PURLEY.----GENDER OF THE SUN IN GERMAN.\n\n\nHorne Tooke was pre-eminently a ready-witted man. He had that clearness\nwhich is founded on shallowness. He doubted nothing; and, therefore, gave\nyou all that he himself knew, or meant, with great completeness. His voice\nwas very fine, and his tones exquisitely discriminating. His mind had no\nprogression or developement. All that is worth any thing (and that is but\nlittle) in the Diversions of Purley is contained in a short pamphlet-letter\nwhich he addressed to Mr. Dunning; then it was enlarged to an octavo, hut\nthere was not a foot of progression beyond the pamphlet; at last, a quarto\nvolume, 1 believe, came out; and yet, verily, excepting newspaper lampoons\nand political insinuations, there was no addition to the argument of the\npamphlet, It shows a base and unpoetical mind to convert so beautiful, so\ndivine, a subject as language into the vehicle or make-weight of political\nsquibs. All that is true in Horne Tooke's book is taken from Lennep, who\ngave it for so much as it was worth, and never pretended to make a system\nof it. Tooke affects to explain the origin and whole philosophy of language\nby what is, in fact, only a mere accident of the history of one language,\nor one or two languages. His abuse of Harris is most shallow and unfair.\nHarris, in the Hermes, was dealing--not very profoundly, it is true,--with\nthe philosophy of language, the moral, physical, and metaphysical causes\nand conditions of it, &c. Horne Tooke, in writing about the formation of\nwords only, thought he was explaining the philosophy of language, which is\na very different thing. In point of fact, he was very shallow in the Gothic\ndialects. I must say, all that _decantata fabula_ about the genders of the\nsun and moon in German seems to me great stuff. Originally, I apprehend, in\nthe _Platt-Deutsch_ of the north of Germany there were only two definite\narticles--_die_ for masculine and feminine, and _das_ for neuter. Then it\nwas _die sonne_, in a masculine sense, as we say with the same word as\narticle, _the_ sun. Luther, in constructing the _Hoch-Deutsch_ (for really\nhis miraculous and providential translation of the Bible was the\nfundamental act of construction of the literary German), took for his\ndistinct masculine article the _der_ of the _Ober-Deutsch_, and thus\nconstituted the three articles of the present High German, _der, die, das_.\nNaturally, therefore, it would then have been, _der sonne_; but here the\nanalogy of the Greek grammar prevailed, and as _sonne_ had the arbitrary\nfeminine termination of the Greek, it was left with its old article _die_,\nwhich, originally including masculine and feminine both, had grown to\ndesignate the feminine only. To the best of my recollection, the\nMinnesingers and all the old poets always use the sun as masculine; and,\nsince Luther's time, the poets feel the awkwardness of the classical gender\naffixed to the sun so much, that they more commonly introduce Phoebus or\nsome other synonyme instead. I must acknowledge my doubts, whether, upon\nmore accurate investigation, it can be shown that there ever was a nation\nthat considered the sun in itself, and apart from language, as the feminine\npower. The moon does not so clearly demand a feminine as the sun does a\nmasculine sex: it might be considered negatively or neuter;--yet if the\nreception of its light from the sun were known, that would have been a good\nreason for making her feminine, as being the recipient body.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs our _the_ was the German _die_, so I believe our _that_ stood for _das_,\nand was used as a neuter definite article.\n\nThe _Platt-Deutsch_ was a compact language like the English, not admitting\nmuch agglutination. The _Ober-Deutsch_ was fuller and fonder of\nagglutinating words together, although it was not so soft in its sounds.\n\n\n\n_May 8. 1830._\n\nHORNE TOOKE.--JACOBINS.\n\n\nHorne Tooke said that his friends might, if they pleased, go as far as\nSlough,--he should go no farther than Hounslow; but that was no reason why\nhe should not keep them company so far as their roads were the same. The\nanswer is easy. Suppose you know, or suspect, that a man is about to commit\na robbery at Slough, though you do not mean to be his accomplice, have you\na moral right to walk arm in arm with him to Hounslow, and, by thus giving\nhim your countenance, prevent his being taken up? The history of all the\nworld tells us, that immoral means will ever intercept good ends.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEnlist the interests of stern morality and religious enthusiasm in the\ncause of political liberty, as in the time of the old Puritans, and it will\nbe irresistible; but the Jacobins played the whole game of religion, and\nmorals, and domestic happiness into the hands of the aristocrats. Thank\nGod! that they did so. England was saved from civil war by their enormous,\ntheir providential, blundering.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCan a politician, a statesman, slight the feelings and the convictions of\nthe whole matronage of his country? The women are as influential upon such\nnational interests as the men.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHorne Tooke was always making a butt of Mr. Godwin; who, nevertheless, had\nthat in him which Tooke could never have understood. I saw a good deal of\nTooke at one time: he left upon me the impression of his being a keen, iron\nman.\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 9. 1830.\n\nPERSIAN AND ARABIC POETRY.--MILESIAN TALES.\n\n\nI must acknowledge I never could see much merit in the Persian poetry,\nwhich I have read in translation. There is not a ray of imagination in it,\nand but a glimmering of fancy. It is, in fact, so far as I know, deficient\nin truth. Poetry is certainly something more than good sense, but it must\nbe good sense, at all events; just as a palace is more than a house, but\nit must be a house, at least. The Arabian Nights' Tales are a different\nthing --they are delightful, but I cannot help surmising that there is a\ngood deal of Greek fancy in them. No doubt we have had a great loss in the\nMilesian Tales.[1] The book of Job is pure Arab poetry of the highest and\nmost antique cast.\n\nThink of the sublimity, I should rather say the profundity, of that\npassage in Ezekiel, [2]\"Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered,\nO Lord God, thou knowest.\" I know nothing like it.\n\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe Milesiacs were so called, because written or composed by Aristides of\nMiletus, and also because the scene of all or most of them was placed in\nthat rich and luxurious city. Harpocration cites the sixth book of this\ncollection. Nothing, I believe, is now known of the age or history of this\nAristides, except what may be inferred from the fact that Lucius Cornelius\nSisenna translated the tales into Latin, as we learn from Ovid:--\n\n  Junxit Aristides _Milesia crimina_ secum--\n\nand afterwards,\n\n  Vertit Aristidem Sisenna, nec obfuit illi\n  Historiae turpes inseruisse jocos:--\n\n  _Fasti_, ii. 412-445.\n\nand also from the incident mentioned in the _Plutarchian_ life of Crassus,\nthat after the defeat at Carrhae, a copy of the Milesiacs of Aristides was\nfound in the baggage of a Roman officer, and that Surena (who, by the by,\nif history has not done him injustice, was not a man to be over scrupulous\nin such a case,) caused the book to be brought into the senate house of\nSeleucia, and a portion of it read aloud, for the purpose of insulting the\nRomans, who, even during war, he said, could not abstain from the perusal\nof such _infamous compositions_,--c. 32. The immoral character of these\ntales, therefore, may be considered pretty clearly established; they were\nthe Decameron and Heptameron of antiquity.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Chap. xxxvii. v. 3.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 11. 1830.\n\n\nSIR T. MONRO.--SIR S. RAFFLES.--CANNING.\n\nSir Thomas Monro and Sir Stamford Raffles were both great men; but I\nrecognise more genius in the latter, though, I believe, the world says\notherwise.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never found what I call an idea in any speech or writing of ----'s.\nThose enormously prolix harangues are a proof of weakness in the higher\nintellectual grasp. Canning had a sense of the beautiful and the good; ---\nrarely speaks but to abuse, detract, and degrade. I confine myself to\ninstitutions, of course, and do not mean personal detraction. In my\njudgment, no man can rightly apprehend an abuse till he has first mastered\nthe idea of the use of an institution. How fine, for example, is the idea\nof the unhired magistracy of England, taking in and linking together the\nduke to the country gentleman in the primary distribution of justice, or\nin the preservation of order and execution of law at least throughout the\ncountry! Yet some men never seem to have thought of it for one moment, but\nas connected with brewers, and barristers, and tyrannical Squire Westerns!\nFrom what I saw of Homer, I thought him a superior man, in real\nintellectual greatness.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCanning flashed such a light around the constitution, that it was difficult\nto see the ruins of the fabric through it.\n\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 12. 1830.\n\nSHAKSPEARE.--MILTON.--HOMER.\n\n\nShakspeare is the Spinosistic deity--an omnipresent creativeness. Milton is\nthe deity of prescience; he stands _ab extra_, and drives a fiery chariot\nand four, making the horses feel the iron curb which holds them in.\nShakspeare's poetry is characterless; that is, it does not reflect the\nindividual Shakspeare; but John Milton himself is in every line of the\nParadise Lost. Shakspeare's rhymed verses are excessively condensed,--\nepigrams with the point every where; but in his blank dramatic verse he is\ndiffused, with a linked sweetness long drawn out. No one can understand\nShakspeare's superiority fully until he has ascertained, by comparison, all\nthat which he possessed in common with several other great dramatists of\nhis age, and has then calculated the surplus which is entirely Shakspeare's\nown. His rhythm is so perfect, that you may be almost sure that you do not\nunderstand the real force of a line, if it does not run well as you read\nit. The necessary mental pause after every hemistich or imperfect line is\nalways equal to the time that would have been taken in reading the complete\nverse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have no doubt whatever that Homer is a mere concrete name for the\nrhapsodies of the Iliad.[1] Of course there was _a_ Homer, and twenty\nbesides. I will engage to compile twelve books with characters just as\ndistinct and consistent as those in the Iliad, from the metrical ballads,\nand other chronicles of England, about Arthur and the Knights of the Round\nTable. I say nothing about moral dignity, but the mere consistency of\ncharacter. The different qualities were traditional. Tristram is always\ncourteous, Lancelot invincible, and so on. The same might be done with the\nSpanish romances of the Cid. There is no subjectivity whatever in the\nHomeric poetry. There is a subjectivity of the poet, as of Milton, who is\nhimself before himself in everything he writes; and there is a subjectivity\nof the _persona_, or dramatic character, as in all Shakspeare's great\ncreations, Hamlet, Lear, &c.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge was a decided Wolfian in the Homeric question; but he had\nnever read a word of the famous Prolegomena, and knew nothing of Wolf's\nreasoning, but what I told him of it in conversation. Mr. C. informed me,\nthat he adopted the conclusion contained in the text upon the first perusal\nof Vico's Scienza Nuova; \"not,\" he said, \"that Vico has reasoned it out\nwith such learning and accuracy as you report of Wolf, but Vico struck out\nall the leading hints, and I soon filled up the rest out of my own head.\"--\nED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 14. 1830.\n\nREASON AND UNDERSTANDING.--WORDS AND NAMES OF THINGS.\n\n\nUntil you have mastered the fundamental difference, in kind, between the\nreason and the understanding as faculties of the human mind, you cannot\nescape a thousand difficulties in philosophy. It is pre-eminently the\n_Gradus ad Philosophiam_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe general harmony between the operations of the mind and heart, and the\nwords which express them in almost all languages, is wonderful; whilst the\nendless discrepancies between the names of _things_ is very well deserving\nnotice. There are nearly a hundred names in the different German dialects\nfor the alder-tree. I believe many more remarkable instances are to be\nfound in Arabic. Indeed, you may take a very pregnant and useful\ndistinction between _words_ and mere arbitrary _names of things_.\n\n\n_May 15. 1830._\n\nTHE TRINITY.--IRVING.\n\n\nThe Trinity is, 1. the Will; 2. the Reason, or Word; 3. the Love, or Life.\nAs we distinguish these three, so we must unite them in one God. The union\nmust be as transcendant as the distinction.\n\nMr. Irving's notion is tritheism,--nay, rather in terms, tri-daemonism. His\nopinion about the sinfulness of the humanity of our Lord is absurd, if\nconsidered in one point of view; for body is not carcass. How can there be\na sinful carcass? But what he says is capable of a sounder interpretation.\nIrving caught many things from me; but he would never attend to any thing\nwhich he thought he could not use in the pulpit. I told him the certain\nconsequence would be, that he would fall into grievous errors. Sometimes he\nhas five or six pages together of the purest eloquence, and then an\noutbreak of almost madman's babble.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe admiration and sympathy which Mr. Coleridge felt and expressed towards\nthe late Mr. Irving, at his first appearance in London, were great and\nsincere; and his grief at the deplorable change which followed was in\nproportion. But, long after the tongues shall have failed and been\nforgotten, Irving's name will live in the splendid eulogies of his friend.\nSee _Church and State_, p. 180. n.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\n_May 16. 1830._\n\nABRAHAM.--ISAAC.--JACOB.\n\n\nHow wonderfully beautiful is the delineation of the characters of the three\npatriarchs in Genesis! To be sure, if ever man could, without impropriety,\nbe called, or supposed to be, \"the friend of God,\" Abraham was that man. We\nare not surprised that Abimelech and Ephron seem to reverence him so\nprofoundly. He was peaceful, because of his conscious relation to God; in\nother respects, he takes fire, like an Arah sheikh, at the injuries\nsuffered by Lot, and goes to war with the combined kinglings immediately.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIsaac is, as it were, a faint shadow of his father Abraham. Born in\npossession of the power and wealth which his father had acquired, he is\nalways peaceful and meditative; and it is curious to observe his timid and\nalmost childish imitation of Abraham's stratagem about his wife. [1] Isaac\ndoes it before-hand, and without any apparent necessity.\n\n[Footnote 1: Gen. xxvi. 6.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJacob is a regular Jew, and practises all sorts of tricks and wiles, which,\naccording to our modern notions of honour, we cannot approve. But you will\nobserve that all these tricks are confined to matters of prudential\narrangement, to worldly success and prosperity (for such, in fact, was the\nessence of the birthright); and I think we must not exact from men of an\nimperfectly civilized age the same conduct as to mere temporal and bodily\nabstinence which we have a right to demand from Christians. Jacob is always\ncareful not to commit any violence; he shudders at bloodshed. See his\ndemeanour after the vengeance taken on the Schechemites. [1] He is the\nexact compound of the timidity and gentleness of Isaac, and of the\nunderhand craftiness of his mother Rebecca. No man could be a bad man who\nloved as he loved Rachel. I dare say Laban thought none the worse of Jacob\nfor his plan of making the ewes bring forth ring-streaked lambs.\n\n[Footnote 1: Gen. xxxiv.]\n\n\n\n_May 17. 1830._\n\nORIGIN OF ACTS.--LOVE.\n\n\nIf a man's conduct cannot be ascribed to the angelic, nor to the bestial\nwithin him, what is there left for us to refer to it, but the fiendish?\nPassion without any appetite is fiendish.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe best way to bring a clever young man, who has become sceptical and\nunsettled, to reason, is to make him _feel_ something in any way. Love, if\nsincere and unworldly, will, in nine instances out of ten, bring him to a\nsense and assurance of something real and actual; and that sense alone will\nmake him _think_ to a sound purpose, instead of dreaming that he is\nthinking.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Never marry but for love,\" says William Penn in his Reflexions and Maxims;\n\"but see that thou lovest what is lovely.\"\n\n\n\n_May 18. 1830._\n\nLORD ELDON'S DOCTRINE AS TO GRAMMAR SCHOOLS.--DEMOCRACY.\n\n\nLord Eldon's doctrine, that grammar schools, in the sense of the reign of\nEdward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, must necessarily mean schools for teaching\nLatin and Greek, is, I think, founded on an insufficient knowledge of the\nhistory and literature of the sixteenth century. Ben Jonson uses the term\n\"grammar\" without any reference to the learned languages.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is intolerable when men, who have no other knowledge, have not even a\ncompetent understanding of that world in which they are always living, and\nto which they refer every thing.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAlthough contemporary events obscure past events in a living man's life,\nyet as soon as he is dead, and his whole life is a matter of history, one\naction stands out as conspicuously as another.\n\nA democracy, according to the prescript of pure reason, would, in fact, be\na church. There would he focal points in it, but no superior.\n\n\n\n_May 20. 1830._\n\nTHE EUCHARIST.--ST. JOHN, xix. 11.--GENUINENESS OF BOOKS OF MOSES.--\nDIVINITY OF CHRIST.--MOSAIC PROPHECIES.\n\n\nNo doubt, Chrysostom, and the other rhetorical fathers, contributed a good\ndeal, by their rash use of figurative language, to advance the\nsuperstitious notion of the eucharist; but the beginning had been much\nearlier. [1] In Clement, indeed, the mystery is treated as it was treated\nby Saint John and Saint Paul; but in Hermas we see the seeds of the error,\nand more clearly in Irenaeus; and so it went on till the idea was changed\ninto an idol.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge made these remarks upon my quoting Selden's well-known saying\n(Table Talk), \"that transubstantiation was nothing but rhetoric turned into\nlogic.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe errors of the Sacramentaries, on the one hand, and of the Romanists on\nthe other, are equally great. The first have volatilized the eucharist into\na metaphor; the last have condensed it into an idol.\n\nJeremy Taylor, in his zeal against transubstantiation, contends that the\nlatter part of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel has no reference to\nthe eucharist. If so, St. John wholly passes over this sacred mystery; for\nhe does not include it in his notice of the last supper. Would not a total\nsilence of this great apostle and evangelist upon this mystery be strange?\nA mystery, I say; for it _is_ a mystery; it is the only mystery in our\nreligious worship. When many of the disciples left our Lord, and apparently\non the very ground that this saying was hard, he does not attempt to detain\nthem by any explanation, but simply adds the comment, that his words were\nspirit. If he had really meant that the eucharist should he a mere\ncommemorative celebration of his death, is it conceivable that he would let\nthese disciples go away from him upon such a gross misunderstanding? Would\nhe not have said, \"You need not make a difficulty; I only mean so and so?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nArnauld, and the other learned Romanists, are irresistible against the low\nsacramentary doctrine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe sacrament of baptism applies itself, and has reference to the faith or\nconviction, and is, therefore, only to be performed once;--it is the light\nof man. The sacrament of the eucharist is a symbol of _all_ our religion;--\nit is the life of man. It is commensurate with our will, and we must,\ntherefore, want it continually.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe meaning of the expression, [Greek: ei m_e _en soi didomenon an_othen],\n\"except it were given thee _from above_,\" in the 19th chapter of St. John,\nver. 11., seems to me to have been generally and grossly mistaken. It is\ncommonly understood as importing that Pilate could have no power to deliver\nJesus to the Jews, unless it had been given him _by God_, which, no doubt,\nis true; but if that is the meaning, where is the force or connection of\nthe following clause, [Greek: dia touto], \"_therefore_ he that delivered me\nunto thee hath the greater sin?\" In what respect were the Jews more sinful\nin delivering Jesus up, _because_ Pilate could do nothing except by God's\nleave? The explanation of Erasmus and Clarke, and some others, is very dry-\nfooted. I conceive the meaning of our Lord to have been simply this, that\nPilate would have had no power or jurisdiction--[Greek: exousian]--over\nhim, if it had not been given by the Sanhedrin, the [Greek: an_o boul_e],\nand _therefore_ it was that the Jews had the greater sin. There was also\nthis further peculiar baseness and malignity in the conduct of the Jews.\nThe mere assumption of Messiahship, as such, was no crime in the eyes of\nthe Jews; they hated Jesus, because he would not be _their sort_ of\nMessiah: on the other hand, the Romans cared not for his declaration that\nhe was the Son of God; the crime in _their_ eyes was his assuming to be a\nking. Now, here were the Jews accusing Jesus before the Roman governor of\n_that_ which, in the first place, they knew that Jesus denied in the sense\nin which they urged it, and which, in the next place, had the charge been\ntrue, would have been so far from a crime in their eyes, that the very\ngospel history itself, as well as all the history to the destruction of\nJerusalem, shows it would have been popular with the whole nation. They\nwished to destroy him, and for that purpose charge him falsely with a crime\nwhich yet was no crime in their own eyes, if it had been true; but only so\nas against the Roman domination, which they hated with all their souls, and\nagainst which they were themselves continually conspiring!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nObserve, I pray, the manner and sense in which the high-priest understands\nthe plain declaration of our Lord, that he was the Son of God. [Footnote:\nMatt. xxvi. v. 63. Mark, xiv. 61.] \"I adjure thee by the living God, that\nthou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God,\" or \"the Son of\nthe Blessed,\" as it is in Mark. Jesus said, \"I am,--and hereafter ye shall\nsee the Son of man (or me) sitting on the right hand of power, and coming\nin the clouds of heaven.\" Does Caiaphas take this explicit answer as if\nJesus meant that he was full of God's spirit, or was doing his commands, or\nwalking in his ways, in which sense Moses, the prophets, nay, all good men,\nwere and are the sons of God? No, no! He tears his robes in sunder, and\ncries out, \"He hath spoken blasphemy. What further need have we of\nwitnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.\" What blasphemy, I\nshould like to know, unless the assuming to be the \"Son of God\" was\nassuming to be of the _divine nature_?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne striking proof of the genuineness of the Mosaic books is this,--they\ncontain precise prohibitions--by way of predicting the consequences of\ndisobedience--of all those things which David and Solomon actually did, and\ngloried in doing,--raising cavalry, making a treaty with Egypt, laying up\ntreasure, and polygamising. Now, would such prohibitions have been\nfabricated in those kings' reigns, or afterwards? Impossible.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe manner of the predictions of Moses is very remarkable. He is like a man\nstanding on an eminence, and addressing people below him, and pointing to\nthings which he can, and they cannot, see. He does not say, You will act in\nsuch and such a way, and the consequences will be so and so; but, So and so\nwill take place, because you will act in such a way!\n\n\n\n\nMay 21. 1830.\n\nTALENT AND GENIUS.--MOTIVES AND IMPULSES.\n\n\nTalent, lying in the understanding, is often inherited; genius, being the\naction of reason and imagination, rarely or never.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMotives imply weakness, and the existence of evil and temptation. The\nangelic nature would act from impulse alone. A due mean of motive and\nimpulse is the only practicable object of our moral philosophy.\n\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 23. 1830.\n\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL LIFE.--HYSTERIA.--HYDRO-CARBONIC GAS.--\nBITTERS AND TONICS.--SPECIFIC MEDICINES.\n\n\nIt is a great error in physiology not to distinguish between what may be\ncalled the general or fundamental life--the _principium vitae_, and the\nfunctional life--the life in the functions. Organization must presuppose\nlife as anterior to it: without life, there could not be or remain any\norganization; but then there is also _a_ life in the organs, or functions,\ndistinct from the other. Thus, a flute presupposes,--demands the existence\nof a musician as anterior to it, without whom no flute could ever have\nexisted; and yet again, without the instrument there can be no music.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt often happens that, on the one hand, the _principium vitae_, or\nconstitutional life, may be affected without any, or the least imaginable,\naffection of the functions; as in inoculation, where one pustule only has\nappeared, and no other perceptible symptom, and yet this has so entered\ninto the constitution, as to indispose it to infection under the most\naccumulated and intense contagion; and, on the other hand, hysteria,\nhydrophobia, and gout will disorder the functions to the most dreadful\ndegree, and yet often leave the life untouched. In hydrophobia, the mind is\nquite sound; but the patient feels his muscular and cutaneous life forcibly\nremoved from under the control of his will.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHysteria may be fitly called _mimosa_, from its counterfeiting so many\ndiseases,--even death itself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHydro-carbonic gas produces the most death-like exhaustion, without any\nprevious excitement. I think this gas should be inhaled by way of\nexperiment in cases of hydrophobia.\n\nThere is a great difference between bitters and tonics. Where weakness\nproceeds from excess of irritability, there bitters act beneficially;\nbecause all bitters are poisons, and operate by stilling, and depressing,\nand lethargizing the irritability. But where weakness proceeds from the\nopposite cause of relaxation, there tonics are good; because they brace up\nand tighten the loosened string. Bracing is a correct metaphor. Bark goes\nnear to be a combination of a bitter and a tonic; but no perfect medical\ncombination of the two properties is yet known.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe study of specific medicines is too much disregarded now. No doubt the\nhunting after specifics is a mark of ignorance and weakness in medicine,\nyet the neglect of them is proof also of immaturity; for, in fact, all\nmedicines will be found specific in the perfection of the science.\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 25. 1830.\n\nEPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.--OATHS.\n\n\nThe Epistle to the Ephesians is evidently a catholic epistle, addressed to\nthe whole of what might be called St. Paul's diocese. It is one of the\ndivinest compositions of man. It embraces every doctrine of Christianity;--\nfirst, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and then those precepts\ncommon to it with natural religion. The Epistle to the Colossians is the\noverflowing, as it were, of St. Paul's mind upon the same subject.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe present system of taking oaths is horrible. It is awfully absurd to\nmake a man invoke God's wrath upon himself, if he speaks false; it is, in\nmy judgment, a sin to do so. The Jews' oath is an adjuration by the judge\nto the witness: \"In the name of God, I ask you.\" There is an express\ninstance of it in the high-priest's adjuring or exorcising Christ by the\nliving God, in the twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, and you will observe\nthat our Lord answered the appeal.[1]\n\nYou may depend upon it, the more oath-taking, the more lying, generally\namong the people.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee this instance cited, and the whole history and moral policy of the\ncommon system of judicial swearing examined with clearness and good\nfeeling, in Mr. Tyler's late work on Oaths.--ED.]\n\n\n\nMay 27. 1830.\n\nFLOGGING.--ELOQUENCE OF ABUSE.\n\n\nI had _one_ just flogging. When I was about thirteen, I went to a\nshoemaker, and begged him to take me as his apprentice. He, being an honest\nman, immediately brought me to Bowyer, who got into a great rage, knocked\nme down, and even pushed Crispin rudely out of the room. Bowyer asked me\nwhy I had made myself such a fool? to which I answered, that I had a great\ndesire to be a shoemaker, and that I hated the thought of being a\nclergyman. \"Why so?\" said he.--\"Because, to tell you the truth, sir,\" said\nI, \"I am an infidel!\" For this, without more ado, Bowyer flogged me,--\nwisely, as I think,--soundly, as I know. Any whining or sermonizing would\nhave gratified my vanity, and confirmed me in my absurdity; as it was, I\nwas laughed at, and got heartily ashamed of my folly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow rich the Aristophanic Greek is in the eloquence of abuse!--\n\n[Greek:\n'O Bdelyre, kanaischunte, kai tolmaere su,\nKai miare, kai pammiare, kai miarotate.][1]\n\nWe are not behindhand in English. Fancy my calling you, upon a fitting\noccasion,--Fool, sot, silly, simpleton, dunce, blockhead, jolterhead,\nclumsy-pate, dullard, ninny, nincompoop, lackwit, numpskull, ass, owl,\nloggerhead, coxcomb, monkey, shallow-brain, addle-head, tony, zany, fop,\nfop-doodle; a maggot-pated, hare-brained, muddle-pated, muddle-headed,\nJackan-apes! Why I could go on for a minute more!\n\n[Footnote 1: In The Frogs.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 28. 1830.\n\nTHE AMERICANS.\n\n\nI deeply regret the anti-American articles of some of the leading reviews.\nThe Americans regard what is said of them in England a thousand times more\nthan they do any thing said of them in any other country. The Americans are\nexcessively pleased with any kind or favourable expressions, and never\nforgive or forget any slight or abuse. It would be better for them if they\nwere a trifle thicker-skinned.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe last American war was to us only something to talk or read about; but\nto the Americans it was the cause of misery in their own homes.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI, for one, do not call the sod under my feet my country. But language,\nreligion, laws, government, blood,--identity in these makes men of one\ncountry.\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 29. 1830.\n\nBOOK OF JOB.\n\n\nThe Book of Job is an Arab poem, antecedent to the Mosaic dispensation. It\nrepresents the mind of a good man not enlightened by an actual revelation,\nbut seeking about for one. In no other book is the desire and necessity for\na Mediator so intensely expressed. The personality of God, the I AM of the\nHebrews, is most vividly impressed on the book, in opposition to pantheism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI now think, after many doubts, that the passage, \"I know that my Redeemer\nliveth,\" &c. may fairly be taken as a burst of determination, a _quasi_\nprophecy. [1] \"I know not _how_ this can be; but in spite of all my\ndifficulties, this I _do_ know, that I shall be recompensed.\"\n\n[Footnote 1: Chap. xix. 25, 26.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt should be observed, that all the imagery in the speeches of the men is\ntaken from the East, and is no more than a mere representation of the forms\nof material nature. But when God speaks, the tone is exalted; and almost\nall the images are taken from Egypt, the crocodile, the war-horse, and so\nforth. Egypt was then the first monarchy that had a splendid court.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSatan, in the prologue, does not mean the devil, our Diabolus. There is no\ncalumny in his words. He is rather the _circuitor_, the accusing spirit, a\ndramatic attorney-general. But after the prologue, which was necessary to\nbring the imagination into a proper state for the dialogue, we hear no more\nof this Satan.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWarburton's notion, that the Book of Job was of so late a date as Ezra, is\nwholly groundless. His only reason is this appearance of Satan.\n\n\n\n_May_ 30. 1830.\n\nTRANSLATION OF THE PSALMS.\n\n\nI wish the Psalms were translated afresh; or, rather, that the present\nversion were revised. Scores of passages are utterly incoherent as they now\nstand. If the primary visual images had been oftener preserved, the\nconnection and force of the sentences would have been better perceived.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge, like so many of the elder divines of the Christian church,\nhad an _affectionate_ reverence for the moral and evangelical portion of\nthe Book of Psalms. He told me that, after having studied every page of the\nBible with the deepest attention, he had found no other part of Scripture\ncome home so closely to his inmost yearnings and necessities. During many\nof his latter years he used to read ten or twelve verses every evening,\nascertaining (for his knowledge of Hebrew was enough for that) the exact\nvisual image or first radical meaning of every noun substantive; and he\nrepeatedly expressed to me his surprise and pleasure at finding that in\nnine cases out of ten the bare primary sense, if literally rendered, threw\ngreat additional light on the text. He was not disposed to allow the\nprophetic or allusive character so largely as is done by Horne and others;\nbut he acknowledged it in some instances in the fullest manner. In\nparticular, he rejected the local and temporary reference which has been\ngiven to the 110th Psalm, and declared his belief in its deep mystical\nimport with regard to the Messiah. Mr. C. once gave me the following note\nupon the _22d_ Psalm written by him, I believe, many years previously, but\nwhich, he said, he approved at that time. It will find as appropriate a\nniche here as any where else:--\n\n\"I am much delighted and instructed by the hypothesis, which I think\nprobable, that our Lord in repeating _Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani_, really\nrecited the whole or a large part of the 22d Psalm. It is impossible to\nread that psalm without the liveliest feelings of love, gratitude, and\nsympathy. It is, indeed, a wonderful prophecy, whatever might or might not\nhave been David's notion when he composed it. Whether Christ did audibly\nrepeat the whole or not, it is certain. I think, that he did it mentally,\nand said aloud what was sufficient to enable his followers to do the same.\nEven at this day to repeat in the same manner but the first line of a\ncommon hymn would be understood as a reference to the whole. Above all, I\nam thankful for the thought which suggested itself to my mind, whilst I was\nreading this beautiful psalm, namely, that we should not exclusively think\nof Christ as the Logos united to human nature, but likewise as a perfect\nman united to the Logos. This distinction is most important in order to\nconceive, much more, appropriately to _feel_, the conduct and exertions of\nJesus.\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 31. 1830.\n\nANCIENT MARINER.--UNDINE.--MARTIN.--PILGRIM'S PROGRESS.\n\n\nMrs. Barbauld once told me that she admired the Ancient Mariner very much,\nbut that there were two faults in it,--it was improbable, and had no moral.\nAs for the probability, I owned that that might admit some question; but as\nto the want of a moral, I told her that in my own judgment the poem had too\nmuch; and that the only, or chief fault, if I might say so, was the\nobtrusion of the moral sentiment so openly on the reader as a principle or\ncause of action in a work of such pure imagination. It ought to have had no\nmore moral than the Arabian Nights' tale of the merchant's sitting down to\neat dates by the side of a well, and throwing the shells aside, and lo! a\ngenie starts up, and says he _must_ kill the aforesaid merchant, _because_\none of the date shells had, it seems, put out the eye of the genie's\nson.[1]\n\nI took the thought of \"_grinning for joy_,\" in that poem, from my\ncompanion's remark to me, when we had climbed to the top of Plinlimmon, and\nwere nearly dead with thirst. We could not speak from the constriction,\ntill we found a little puddle under a stone. He said to me,--\"You grinned\nlike an idiot!\" He had done the same.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"There he found, at the foot of a great walnut-tree, a fountain of a very\nclear running water, and alighting, tied his horse to a branch of a tree,\nand sitting clown by the fountain, took some biscuits and dates out of his\nportmanteau, and, as he ate his dates, threw the shells about on both sides\nof him. When he had done eating, being a good Mussulman, he washed his\nhands, his face, and his feet, and said his prayers. He had not made an\nend, but was still on his knees, when he saw a genie appear, all white with\nage, and of a monstrous bulk; who, advancing towards him with a cimetar in\nhis hand, spoke to him in a terrible voice thus:--'Rise up, that I may kill\nthee with this cimetar as you have killed my son!' and accompanied these\nwords with a frightful cry. The merchant being as much frightened at the\nhideous shape of the monster as at these threatening words, answered him\ntrembling:--'Alas! my good lord, of what crime can I be guilty towards you\nthat you should take away my life?'--'I will,' replies the genie, 'kill\nthee, as thou hast killed my son!'--'O heaven!' says the merchant, 'how\nshould I kill your son? I did not know him, nor ever saw him.'--'Did not\nyou sit down when you came hither?' replies the genie. 'Did not you take\ndates out of your portmanteau, and, as you ate them, did not you throw the\nshells about on both sides?'--'I did all that you say,' answers the\nmerchant, 'I cannot deny it.'--'If it be so,' replied the genie, 'I tell\nthee that thou hast killed my son; and the way was thus: when you threw the\nnutshells about, my son was passing by, and you threw one of them into his\neye, which killed him, _therefore_ I must kill thee.'--'Ah! my good lord,\npardon me!' cried the merchant.--'No pardon,' answers the genie, 'no mercy!\nIs it not just to kill him that has killed another?'--'I agree to it,' says\nthe merchant, 'but certainly I never killed your son, and if I have, it was\nunknown to me, and I did it innocently; therefore I beg you to pardon me,\nand suffer me to live.'--'No, no,' says the genie, persisting in his\nresolution, 'I must kill thee, since thou hast killed my son;' and then\ntaking the merchant by the arm, threw him with his face upon the ground,\nand lifted up his cimetar to cut off his head!\"--The Merchant and the\nGenie. First night.--Ed.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUndine is a most exquisite work. It shows the general want of any sense for\nthe fine and the subtle in the public taste, that this romance made no deep\nimpression. Undine's character, before she receives a soul, is marvellously\nbeautiful.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge's admiration of this little romance was unbounded. He read it\nseveral times in German, and once in the English translation, made in\nAmerica, I believe; the latter he thought inadequately done. Mr. C. said\nthat there was something in Undine even beyond Scott,--that Scott's best\ncharacters and conceptions were _composed_; by which I understood him to\nmean that Baillie Nicol Jarvie, for example, was made up of old\nparticulars, and received its individuality from the author's power of\nfusion, being in the result an admirable product, as Corinthian brass was\nsaid to be the conflux of the spoils of a city. But Undine, he said, was\none and single in projection, and had presented to his imagination, what\nScott had never done, an absolutely new idea--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt seems to me, that Martin never looks at nature except through bits of\nstained glass. He is never satisfied with any appearance that is not\nprodigious. He should endeavour to school his imagination into the\napprehension of the true idea of the Beautiful.[1]\n\nThe wood-cut of Slay-good[2] is admirable, to be sure; but this new edition\nof the Pilgrim's Progress is too fine a book for it. It should be much\nlarger, and on sixpenny coarse paper.\n\nThe Pilgrim's Progress is composed in the lowest style of English, without\nslang or false grammar. If you were to polish it, you would at once destroy\nthe reality of the vision. For works of imagination should be written in\nvery plain language; the more purely imaginative they are the more\nnecessary it is to be plain.\n\nThis wonderful work is one of the few books which may be read over\nrepeatedly at different times, and each time with a new and a different\npleasure. I read it once as a theologian--and let me assure you, that there\nis great theological acumen in the work--once with devotional feelings--and\nonce as a poet. I could not have believed beforehand that Calvinism could\nbe painted in such exquisitely delightful colours.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge said this, after looking at the engravings of Mr. Martin's\ntwo pictures of the Valley of the Shadow of Death, and the Celestial City,\npublished in the beautiful edition of the Pilgrim's Progress by Messrs.\nMurray and Major, in 1830. I wish Mr. Martin could have heard the poet's\nlecture: he would have been flattered, and at the same time, I believe,\ninstructed; for in the philosophy of painting Coleridge was a master.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nP. 350., by S. Mosses from a design by Mr. W. Harvey. \"When they came to\nthe place where he was, they found him with one _Feeble-mind_ in his hand,\nwhom his servants had brought unto him, having taken him in the way. Now\nthe giant was rifling him, with a purpose, after that, to pick his bones;\nfor he was of the nature of flesh eaters.\"--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\nI find written on a blank leaf of my copy of this edition of the P.'s P.\nthe following note by Mr. C.:--\"I know of no book, the Bible excepted as\nabove all comparison, which I, according to _my_ judgment and experience,\ncould so safely recommend as teaching and enforcing the whole saving truth\naccording to the mind that was in Christ Jesus, as the Pilgrim's Progress.\nIt is, in my conviction, incomparably the best _summa theologiae\nevangalicae_ ever produced by a writer not miraculously inspired.\" June 14.\n1830.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_June_ 1. 1830.\n\nPRAYER.--CHURCH-SINGING.--HOOKER.--DREAMS.\n\n\nThere are three sorts of prayer:--1. Public; 2. Domestic; 3. Solitary. Each\nhas its peculiar uses and character. I think the church ought to publish\nand authorise a directory of forms for the latter two. Yet I fear the\nexecution would be inadequate. There is a great decay of devotional unction\nin the numerous books of prayers put out now-a-days. I really think the\nhawker was very happy, who blundered New Form of Prayer into New _former_\nPrayers.[1]\n\nI exceedingly regret that our church pays so little attention to the\nsubject of congregational singing. See how it is! In that particular part\nof the public worship in which, more than in all the rest, the common\npeople might, and ought to, join,--which, by its association with music, is\nmeant to give a fitting vent and expression to the emotions,--in that part\nwe all sing as Jews; or, at best, as mere men, in the abstract, without a\nSaviour. You know my veneration for the Book of Psalms, or most of it; but\nwith some half dozen exceptions, the Psalms are surely not adequate\nvehicles of Christian thanksgiving and joy! Upon this deficiency in our\nservice, Wesley and Whitfield seized; and you know it is the hearty\ncongregational singing of Christian hymns which keeps the humbler\nMethodists together. Luther did as much for the Reformation by his hymns as\nby his translation of the Bible. In Germany, the hymns are known by heart\nby every peasant: they advise, they argue from the hymns, and every soul in\nthe church praises God, like a Christian, with words which are natural and\nyet sacred to his mind. No doubt this defect in our service proceeded from\nthe dread which the English Reformers had of being charged with introducing\nany thing into the worship of God but the text of Scripture.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"I will add, at the risk of appearing to dwell too long on religious\ntopics, that on this my first introduction to Coleridge he reverted with\nstrong compunction to a sentiment which he had expressed in earlier days\nupon prayer. In one of his youthful poems, speaking of God, he had said--\n\n     --'Of whose all-seeing eye\n    Aught to demand were impotence of mind.'\n\nThis sentiment he now so utterly condemned, that, on the contrary, he told\nme, as his own peculiar opinion, that the act of praying was the very\nhighest energy of which the human heart was capable, praying, that is, with\nthe total concentration of the faculties; and the great mass of worldly men\nand of learned men he pronounced absolutely incapable of prayer.\"--_Tait's\nMagazine_, September, 1834, p. 515.\n\nMr. Coleridge within two years of his death very solemnly declared to me\nhis conviction upon the same subject. I was sitting by his bedside one\nafternoon, and he fell, an unusual thing for him, into a long account of\nmany passages of his past life, lamenting some things, condemning others,\nbut complaining withal, though very gently, of the way in which many of his\nmost innocent acts had been cruelly misrepresented. \"But I have no\ndifficulty,\" said he, \"in forgiveness; indeed, I know not how to say with\nsincerity the clause in the Lord's Prayer, which asks forgiveness _as we\nforgive_. I feel nothing answering to it in my heart. Neither do I find, or\nreckon, the most solemn faith in God as a real object, the most arduous act\nof the reason and will. O no, my dear, it is _to pray, to pray_ as God\nwould have us; this is what at times makes me turn cold to my soul. Believe\nme, to pray with all your heart and strength, with the reason and the will,\nto believe vividly that God will listen to your voice through Christ, and\nverily do the thing he pleaseth thereupon--this is the last, the greatest\nachievement of the Christian's warfare upon earth. _Teach_ us to pray, O\nLord!\" And then he burst into a flood of tears, and begged me to pray for\nhim. O what a sight was there!--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHooker said,--That by looking for that in the Bible which it is impossible\nthat _any book_ can have, we lose the benefits which we might reap from its\nbeing the best of all books.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou will observe, that even in dreams nothing is fancied without an\nantecedent _quasi_ cause. It could not be otherwise.\n\n\n\n\n\n_June_ 4. 1830.\n\nJEREMY TAYLOR.--ENGLISH REFORMATION.\n\n\nTaylor's was a great and lovely mind; yet how much and injuriously was it\nperverted by his being a favourite and follower of Laud, and by his\nintensely popish feelings of church authority. [1] His Liberty of\nProphesying is a work of wonderful eloquence and skill; but if we believe\nthe argument, what do we come to? Why to nothing more or less than this,\nthat--so much can be said for every opinion and sect,--so impossible is it\nto settle any thing by reasoning or authority of Scripture,--we must appeal\nto some positive jurisdiction on earth, _ut sit finis controversiarum_. In\nfact, the whole book is the precise argument used by the Papists to induce\nmen to admit the necessity of a supreme and infallible head of the church\non earth. It is one of the works which preeminently gives countenance to\nthe saying of Charles or James II., I forget which:--\"When you of the\nChurch of England contend with the Catholics, you use the arguments of the\nPuritans; when you contend with the Puritans, you immediately adopt all the\nweapons of the Catholics.\" Taylor never speaks with the slightest symptom\nof affection or respect of Luther, Calvin, or any other of the great\nreformers--at least, not in any of his learned works; but he _saints_ every\ntrumpery monk and friar, down to the very latest canonizations by the\nmodern popes. I fear you will think me harsh, when I say that I believe\nTaylor was, perhaps unconsciously, half a Socinian in heart. Such a strange\ninconsistency would not be impossible. The Romish church has produced many\nsuch devout Socinians. The cross of Christ is dimly seen in Taylor's works.\nCompare him in this particular with Donne, and you will feel the difference\nin a moment. Why are not Donne's volumes of sermons reprinted at Oxford?[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge placed Jeremy Taylor amongst the four great geniuses of old\nEnglish literature. I think he used to reckon Shakspeare and Bacon, Milton\nand Taylor, four-square, each against each. In mere eloquence, he thought\nthe Bishop without any fellow. He called him Chrysostom. Further, he loved\nthe man, and was anxious to find excuses for some weak parts in his\ncharacter. But Mr. Coleridge's assent to Taylor's views of many of the\nfundamental positions of Christianity was very limited; and, indeed, he\nconsidered him as the least sound in point of doctrine of any of the old\ndivines, comprehending, within that designation, the writers to the middle\nof Charles II.'s reign. He speaks of Taylor in \"The Friend\" in the\nfollowing terms:--\"Among the numerous examples with which I might enforce\nthis warning, I refer, not without reluctance, to the most eloquent, and\none of the most learned, of our divines; a rigorist, indeed, concerning the\nauthority of the church, but a latitudinarian in the articles of its faith;\nwho stretched the latter almost to the advanced posts of Socinianism, and\nstrained the former to a hazardous conformity with the assumptions of the\nRoman hierarchy.\" Vol. ii. p. 108.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nWhy not, indeed! It is really quite unaccountable that the sermons\nof this great divine of the English church should be so little known as\nthey are, even to very literary clergymen of the present day. It might\nhave been expected, that the sermons of the greatest preacher of his age,\nthe admired of Ben Jonson, Selden, and all that splendid band of poets\nand scholars, would even as curiosities have been reprinted, when works,\nwhich are curious for nothing, are every year sent forth afresh under the\nmost authoritative auspices. Dr. Donne was educated at both universities,\nat Hart Hall, Oxford, first, and afterwards at Cambridge, but at\nwhat college Walton does not mention--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the reign of Edward VI., the Reformers feared to admit almost any thing\non human authority alone. They had seen and felt the abuses consequent on\nthe popish theory of Christianity; and I doubt not they wished and intended\nto reconstruct the religion and the church, as far as was possible, upon\nthe plan of the primitive ages? But the Puritans pushed this bias to an\nabsolute bibliolatry. They would not put on a corn-plaster without scraping\na text over it. Men of learning, however, soon felt that this was wrong in\nthe other extreme, and indeed united itself to the very abuse it seemed to\nshun. They saw that a knowledge of the Fathers, and of early tradition, was\nabsolutely necessary; and unhappily, in many instances, the excess of the\nPuritans drove the men of learning into the old popish extreme of denying\nthe Scriptures to be capable of affording a rule of faith without the\ndogmas of the church. Taylor is a striking instance how far a Protestant\nmight be driven in this direction.\n\n\n\n\n_June_ 6. 1830.\n\nCATHOLICITY.--GNOSIS.--TERTULLIAN.--ST. JOHN.\n\n\nIn the first century, catholicity was the test of a book or epistle--\nwhether it were of the Evangelicon or Apostolicon--being canonical. This\ncatholic spirit was opposed to the gnostic or peculiar spirit,--the humour\nof fantastical interpretation of the old Scriptures into Christian\nmeanings. It is this gnosis, or _knowingness,_ which the Apostle says\npuffeth up,--not _knowledge_, as we translate it. The Epistle of Barnabas,\nof the genuineness of which I have no sort of doubt, is an example of this\ngnostic spirit. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the only instance of gnosis\nin the canon: it was written evidently by some apostolical man before the\ndestruction of the Temple, and probably at Alexandria. For three hundred\nyears, and more, it was not admitted into the canon, especially not by the\nLatin church, on account of this difference in it from the other\nScriptures. But its merit was so great, and the gnosis in it is so kept\nwithin due bounds, that its admirers at last succeeded, especially by\naffixing St. Paul's name to it, to have it included in the canon; which was\nfirst done, I think, by the council of Laodicea in the middle of the fourth\ncentury. Fortunately for us it was so.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI beg Tertullian's pardon; but amongst his many _bravuras_, he says\nsomething about St. Paul's autograph. Origen expressly declares the\nreverse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is delightful to think, that the beloved apostle was born a Plato. To\nhim was left the almost oracular utterance of the mysteries of the\nChristian religion while to St. Paul was committed the task of explanation,\ndefence, and assertion of all the doctrines, and especially of those\nmetaphysical ones touching the will and grace;[1] for which purpose his\nactive mind, his learned education, and his Greek logic, made him\npre-eminently fit.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"The imperative and oracular form of the inspired Scripture is the form of\nreason itself, in all things purely rational and moral.\"--_Statesman's\nManual_, p. 22.]\n\n\n\n\nJune 7. 1830.\n\nPRINCIPLES OF A REVIEW.--PARTY-SPIRIT.\n\n\nNotwithstanding what you say, I am persuaded that a review would amply\nsucceed even now, which should be started upon a published code of\nprinciples, critical, moral, political, and religious; which should\nannounce what sort of books it would review, namely, works of literature as\ncontradistinguished from all that offspring of the press, which in the\npresent age supplies food for the craving caused by the extended ability of\nreading without any correspondent education of the mind, and which formerly\nwas done by conversation, and which should really give a fair account of\nwhat the author intended to do, and in his own words, if possible, and in\naddition, afford one or two fair specimens of the execution,--itself never\ndescending for one moment to any personality. It should also be provided\nbefore the commencement with a dozen powerful articles upon fundamental\ntopics to appear in succession. You see the great reviewers are now ashamed\nof reviewing works in the old style, and have taken up essay writing\ninstead. Hence arose such publications as the Literary Gazette and others,\nwhich are set up for the purpose--not a useless one--of advertizing new\nbooks of all sorts for the circulating libraries. A mean between the two\nextremes still remains to be taken.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nParty men always hate a slightly differing friend more than a downright\nenemy. I quite calculate on my being one day or other holden in worse\nrepute by many Christians than the Unitarians and open infidels. It must be\nundergone by every one who loves the truth for its own sake beyond all\nother things.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTruth is a good dog; but beware of barking too close to the heels of an\nerror, lest you get your brains kicked out.\n\n\n\n_June_ 10. 1830.\n\nSOUTHEY'S LIFE OF BUNYAN.--LAUD.--PURITANS AND CAVALIERS.--PRESBYTERIANS,\nINDEPENDENTS, AND BISHOPS.\n\nSouthey's Life of Bunyan is beautiful. I wish he had illustrated that mood\nof mind which exaggerates, and still more, mistakes, the inward\ndepravation, as in Bunyan, Nelson, and others, by extracts from Baxter's\nLife of himself. What genuine superstition is exemplified in that bandying\nof texts and half texts, and demi-semi-texts, just as memory happened to\nsuggest them, or chance brought them before Bunyan's mind! His tract,\nentitled, \"Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners\"[1] is a study for a\nphilosopher.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners, in a faithful Account of the Life\nand Death of John Bunyan, &c.\" Is it not, however, an historical error to\ncall the Puritans dissenters? Before St. Bartholomew's day, they were\nessentially a part of the church, and had as determined opinions in favour\nof a church establishment as the bishops themselves.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLaud was not exactly a Papist to be sure; but he was on the road with the\nchurch with him to a point, where declared popery would have been\ninevitable. A wise and vigorous Papist king would very soon, and very\njustifiably too, in that case, have effected a reconciliation between the\nchurches of Rome and England, when the line of demarcation had become so\nvery faint.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe faults of the Puritans were many; but surely their morality will, in\ngeneral, bear comparison with that of the Cavaliers after the Restoration.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Presbyterians hated the Independents much more than they did the\nbishops, which induced them to cooperate in effecting the Restoration.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe conduct of the bishops towards Charles, whilst at Breda, was wise and\nconstitutional. They knew, however, that when the forms of the constitution\nwere once restored, all their power would revive again as of course.\n\n\n\nJune 14. 1830.\n\nSTUDY OF THE BIBLE.\n\nIntense study of the Bible will keep any writer from being _vulgar_, in\npoint of style.\n\n\n\n\nJune 15. 1830.\n\nRABELAIS.--SWIFT.--BENTLEY.--SUBNET.\n\n\nRabelais is a most wonderful writer. Pantagruel is the Reason; Panurge the\nUnderstanding,--the pollarded man, the man with every faculty except the\nreason. I scarcely know an example more illustrative of the distinction\nbetween the two. Rabelais had no mode of speaking the truth in those days\nbut in such a form as this; as it was, he was indebted to the King's\nprotection for his life. Some of the commentators talk about his book being\nall political; there are contemporary politics in it, of course, but the\nreal scope is much higher and more philosophical. It is in vain to look\nabout for a hidden meaning in all that he has written; you will observe\nthat, after any particularly deep thrust, as the Papimania[1] for example,\nRabelais, as if to break the blow, and to appear unconscious of what he has\ndone, writes a chapter or two of pure buffoonery.\n\nHe, every now and then, flashes you a glimpse of a real face from his magic\nlantern, and then buries the whole scene in mist. The morality of the work\nis of the most refined and exalted kind; as for the manners, to be sure, I\ncannot say much.\n\nSwift was _anima Rabelaisii habitans in sicco_,--the soul of Rabelais\ndwelling in a dry place.\n\nYet Swift was rare. Can any thing beat his remark on King William's motto,\n--_Recepit, non rapuit_,--\"that the receiver was as bad as the thief?\"\n\n[Footnote 1:\nB. iv. c. 48. \"Comment Pantagruel descendit en l'Isle de Papimanes.\" See\nthe five following chapters, especially c. 50.; and note also c. 9. of the\nfifth book; \"Comment nous fut monstr\u00e9 Papegaut \u00e0 grande difficult\u00e9.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe effect of the Tory wits attacking Bentley with such acrimony has been\nto make them appear a set of shallow and incompetent scholars. Neither\nBentley nor Burnet suffered from the hostility of the wits. Burnet's\n\"History of his own Times\" is a truly valuable book. His credulity is\ngreat, but his simplicity is equally great; and he never deceives you for a\nmoment.\n\n\n\n_June_ 25. 1830.\n\nGIOTTO.--PAINTING.\n\n\nThe fresco paintings by Giotto[1] and others, in the cemetery at Pisa,\nare most noble. Giotto was a contemporary of Dante: and it is a curious\nquestion, whether the painters borrowed from the poet, or _vice versa_.\nCertainly M. Angelo and Raffael fed their imaginations highly with these\ngrand drawings, especially M. Angelo, who took from them his bold yet\ngraceful lines.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nGiotto, or Angiolotto's birth is fixed by Vasari in 1276, but there is\nsome reason to think that he was born a little earlier. Dante, who was\nhis friend, was born in 1265. Giotto was the pupil of Cimabue, whom he\nentirely eclipsed, as Dante testifies in the well-known lines in\nthe Purgatorio:--\n\n  \"O vana gloria dell'umane posse!\n  Com' poco verde in su la cima dura,\n  Se non e giunta dall' etati grosse!\n  Credette Cirnabue nella pintura\n  Tener lo campo: ed ora ha Giotto il grido,\n  Si che la fama di colui oscura.\"--C. xi. v. 91.\n\nHis six great frescos in the cemetery at Pisa are upon the sufferings and\npatience of Job.--ED.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPeople may say what they please about the gradual improvement of the Arts.\nIt is not true of the substance. The Arts and the Muses both spring forth\nin the youth of nations, like Minerva from the front of Jupiter, all armed:\nmanual dexterity may, indeed, he improved by practice.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPainting went on in power till, in Raffael, it attained the zenith, and in\nhim too it showed signs of a tendency downwards by another path. The\npainter began to think of overcoming difficulties. After this the descent\nwas rapid, till sculptors began to work inveterate likenesses of perriwigs\nin marble,--as see Algarotti's tomb in the cemetery at Pisa,--and painters\ndid nothing but copy, as well as they could, the external face of nature.\nNow, in this age, we have a sort of reviviscence,--not, I fear, of the\npower, but of a taste for the power, of the early times.\n\n\n\n_June_ 26. 1830.\n\nSENECA.\n\n\nYou may get a motto for every sect in religion, or line of thought in\nmorals or philosophy, from Seneca; but nothing is ever thought _out_ by\nhim.\n\n\n\n\n_July_ 2. 1830.\n\nPLATO.--ARISTOTLE.\n\n\nEvery man is born an Aristotelian, or a Platonist. I do not think it\npossible that any one born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am\nsure no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian. They are the\ntwo classes of men, beside which it is next to impossible to conceive a\nthird. The one considers reason a quality, or attribute; the other\nconsiders it a power. I believe that Aristotle never could get to\nunderstand what Plato meant by an idea. There is a passage, indeed, in the\nEudemian Ethics which looks like an exception; but I doubt not of its being\nspurious, as that whole work is supposed by some to be. With Plato ideas\nare constitutive in themselves.[1]\n\nAristotle was, and still is, the sovereign lord of the understanding; the\nfaculty judging by the senses. He was a conceptualist, and never could\nraise himself into that higher state, which was natural to Plato, and has\nbeen so to others, in which the understanding is distinctly contemplated,\nand, as it were, looked down upon from the throne of actual ideas, or\nliving, inborn, essential truths.\n\nYet what a mind was Aristotle's--only not the greatest that ever animated\nthe human form!--the parent of science, properly so called, the master of\ncriticism, and the founder or editor of logic! But he confounded science\nwith philosophy, which is an error. Philosophy is the middle state between\nscience, or knowledge, and sophia, or wisdom.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge said the Eudemian Ethics; but I half suspect he must have\nmeant the Metaphysics, although I do not know that _all_ the fourteen books\nunder that title have been considered non-genuine. The [Greek: Aethicha\nEudaemeia] are not Aristotle's. To what passage in particular allusion is\nhere made, I cannot exactly say; many might be alleged, but not one seems\nto express the true Platonic idea, as Mr. Coleridge used to understand it;\nand as, I believe, he ultimately considered ideas in his own philosophy.\nFourteen or fifteen years previously, he seems to have been undecided upon\nthis point. \"Whether,\" he says, \"ideas are regulative only, according to\nAristotle and Kant, or likewise _constitutive_, and one with the power and\nlife of nature, according to Plato and Plotinus [Greek:--eg logo zoae aeg,\nchai ae zoae aeg to phos tog agthwpog] is the highest problem of\nphilosophy, and not part of its nomenclature.\" Essay (E) in the Appendix to\nthe _Statesman's Manual_, 1816.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 4. 1830.\n\nDUKE OF WELLINGTON.--MONEYED INTEREST.--CANNING.\n\n\nI sometimes fear the Duke of Wellington is too much disposed to imagine\nthat he can govern a great nation by word of command, in the same way in\nwhich he governed a highly disciplined army. He seems to be unaccustomed\nto, and to despise, the inconsistencies, the weaknesses, the bursts of\nheroism followed by prostration and cowardice, which invariably\ncharacterise all popular efforts. He forgets that, after all, it is from\nsuch efforts that all the great and noble institutions of the world have\ncome; and that, on the other hand, the discipline and organization of\narmies have been only like the flight of the cannon-ball, the object of\nwhich is destruction.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n                        Straight forward goes\nThe lightning's path, and straight the fearful path\nOf the cannon-ball. Direct it flies and rapid,\nShattering that it may reach, and shattering what it reaches.\n\n_Wallenstein_, Part I, act i, sc. 4]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe stock-jobbing and moneyed interest is so strong in this country, that\nit has more than once prevailed in our foreign councils over national\nhonour and national justice. The country gentlemen are not slow to join in\nthis influence. Canning felt this very keenly, and said he was unable to\ncontend against the city trained-bands.\n\n\n\n\n_July_ 6, 1830.\n\nBOURRIENNE.\n\n\nBourienne is admirable. He is the French Pepys,--a man with right feelings,\nbut always wishing to participate in what is going on, be it what it may.\nHe has one remark, when comparing Buonaparte with Charlemagne, the\nsubstance of which I have attempted to express in \"The Friend\"[1] but which\nBourrienne has condensed into a sentence worthy of Tacitus, or Machiavel,\nor Bacon. It is this; that Charlemagne was above his age, whilst Buonaparte\nwas only above his competitors, but under his age! Bourrienne has done more\nthan any one else to show Buonaparte to the world as he really was,--always\ncontemptible, except when acting a part, and that part not his own.\n\n[Footnote 1: Vol. i. Essay 12. p. 133.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 8. 1830.\n\nJEWS.\n\n\nThe other day I was what you would call _floored_ by a Jew. He passed me\nseveral times crying out for old clothes in the most nasal and\nextraordinary tone I ever heard. At last I was so provoked, that I said to\nhim, \"Pray, why can't you say 'old clothes' in a plain way as I do now?\"\nThe Jew stopped, and looking very gravely at me, said in a clear and even\nfine accent, \"Sir, I can say 'old clothes' as well as you can; but if you\nhad to say so ten times a minute, for an hour together, you would say _Ogh\nClo_ as I do now;\" and so he marched off. I was so confounded with the\njustice of his retort, that I followed and gave him a shilling, the only\none I had.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have had a good deal to do with Jews in the course of my life, although I\nnever borrowed any money of them. Once I sat in a coach opposite a Jew--a\nsymbol of old clothes' bags--an Isaiah of Hollywell Street. He would close\nthe window; I opened it. He closed it again; upon which, in a very solemn\ntone, I said to him, \"Son of Abraham! thou smellest; son of Isaac! thou art\noffensive; son of Jacob! thou stinkest foully. See the man in the moon! he\nis holding his nose at thee at that distance; dost thou think that I,\nsitting here, can endure it any longer?\" My Jew was astounded, opened the\nwindow forthwith himself, and said, \"he was sorry he did not know before I\nwas so great a gentleman.\"\n\n\n\n_July_ 24. 1830.\n\nTHE PAPACY AND THE REFORMATION.--LEO X.\n\n\nDuring the early part of the middle ages, the papacy was nothing, in fact,\nbut a confederation of the learned men in the west of Europe against the\nbarbarism and ignorance of the times. The Pope was chief of this\nconfederacy; and so long as he retained that character exclusively, his\npower was just and irresistible. It was the principal mean of preserving\nfor us and for our posterity all that we now have of the illumination of\npast ages. But as soon as the Pope made a separation between his character\nas premier clerk in Christendom and as a secular prince; as soon as he\nbegan to squabble for towns and castles; then he at once broke the charm,\nand gave birth to a revolution. From that moment, those who remained firm\nto the cause of truth and knowledge became necessary enemies to the Roman\nSee. The great British schoolmen led the way; then Wicliffe rose, Huss,\nJerome, and others;--in short, every where, but especially throughout the\nnorth of Europe, the breach of feeling and sympathy went on widening,--so\nthat all Germany, England, Scotland, and other countries started like\ngiants out of their sleep at the first blast of Luther's trumpet. In\nFrance, one half of the people--and that the most wealthy and enlightened--\nembraced the Reformation. The seeds of it were deeply and widely spread in\nSpain and in Italy; and as to the latter, if James I. had been an\nElizabeth, I have no doubt at all that Venice would have publicly declared\nitself against Rome. It is a profound question to answer, why it is, that\nsince the middle of the sixteenth century the Reformation has not advanced\none step in Europe.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the time of Leo X. atheism, or infidelity of some sort, was almost\nuniversal in Italy amongst the high dignitaries of the Romish church.\n\n\n\n_July_ 27. 1830.\n\nTHELWALL.--SWIFT.--STELLA.\n\n\nJohn Thelwall had something very good about him. We were once sitting in a\nbeautiful recess in the Quantocks, when I said to him, \"Citizen John, this\nis a fine place to talk treason in!\"--\"Nay! Citizen Samuel,\" replied he,\n\"it is rather a place to make a man forget that there is any necessity for\ntreason!\"\n\nThelwall thought it very unfair to influence a child's mind by inculcating\nany opinions before it should have come to years of discretion, and be able\nto choose for itself. I showed him my garden, and told him it was my\nbotanical garden. \"How so?\" said he, \"it is covered with weeds.\"--\"Oh,\" I\nreplied, \"_that_ is only because it has not yet come to its age of\ndiscretion and choice. The weeds, you see, have taken the liberty to grow,\nand I thought it unfair in me to prejudice the soil towards roses and\nstrawberries.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think Swift adopted the name of Stella, which is a man's name, with a\nfeminine termination, to denote the mysterious epicene relation in which\npoor Miss Johnston stood to him.\n\n\n\n_July_ 28. 1830.\n\nINIQUITOUS LEGISLATION.\n\n\nThat legislation is iniquitous which sets law in conflict with the common\nand unsophisticated feelings of our nature. If I were a clergyman in a\nsmuggling town, I would _not_ preach against smuggling. I would not be made\na sort of clerical revenue officer. Let the government, which by absurd\nduties fosters smuggling, prevent it itself, if it can. How could I show my\nhearers the immorality of going twenty miles in a boat, and honestly buying\nwith their money a keg of brandy, except by a long deduction which they\ncould not understand? But were I in a place where wrecking went on, see if\nI would preach on any thing else!\n\n\n\n_July_ 29. 1830.\n\nSPURZHEIM AND CRANIOLOOY.\n\n\nSpurzheim is a good man, and I like him; but he is dense, and the most\nignorant German I ever knew. If he had been content with stating certain\nremarkable coincidences between the moral qualities and the configuration\nof the skull, it would have been well; but when he began to map out the\ncranium dogmatically, he fell into infinite absurdities. You know that\nevery intellectual act, however you may distinguish it by name in respect\nof the originating faculties, is truly the act of the entire man; the\nnotion of distinct material organs, therefore, in the brain itself, is\nplainly absurd. Pressed by this, Spurzheim has, at length, been guilty of\nsome sheer quackery; and ventures to say that he has actually discovered a\ndifferent material in the different parts or organs of the brain, so that\nhe can tell a piece of benevolence from a bit of destructiveness, and so\nforth. Observe, also, that it is constantly found, that so far from there\nbeing a concavity in the interior surface of the cranium answering to the\nconvexity apparent on the exterior--the interior is convex too. Dr. Baillie\nthought there was something in the system, because the notion of the brain\nbeing an extendible net helped to explain those cases where the intellect\nremained after the solid substance of the brain was dissolved in water.[1]\n\nThat a greater or less development of the forepart of the head is generally\ncoincidedent with more or less of reasoning power, is certain. The line\nacross the forehead, also, denoting musical power, is very common.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"The very marked, _positive_ as well as comparative, magnitude and\nprominence of the bump, entitled _benevolence_ (see Spurzheim's _map of the\nhuman skull_) on the head of the late Mr. John Thurtell, has woefully\nunsettled the faith of many ardent phrenologists, and strengthened the\nprevious doubts of a still greater number into utter disbelief. On _my_\nmind this fact (for a _fact_ it is) produced the directly contrary effect;\nand inclined me to suspect, for the first time, that there may be some\ntruth in the Spurzheimian scheme. Whether future craniologists may not see\ncause to _new-name_ this and one or two others of these convex gnomons, is\nquite a different question. At present, and according to the present use of\nwords, any such change would be premature; and we must be content to say,\nthat Mr. Thurtell's benevolence was insufficiently modified by the\nunprotrusive and unindicated convolutes of the brain, that secrete honesty\nand common sense. The organ of destructiveness was indirectly _potentiated_\nby the absence or imperfect development of the glands of reason and\nconscience in this '_unfortunate gentleman.'\"--_Aids to Reflection_, p.\n143. n.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 20. 1830.\n\nFRENCH REVOLUTION, 1830.--CAPTAIN R. AND THE AMERICANS.\n\nThe French must have greatly improved under the influence of a free and\nregular government (for such it, in general, has been since the\nrestoration), to have conducted themselves with so much moderation in\nsuccess as they seem to have done, and to be disposed to do.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI must say I cannot see much in Captain B. Hall's account of the Americans,\nbut weaknesses--some of which make me like the Yankees all the better. How\nmuch more amiable is the American fidgettiness and anxiety about the\nopinion of other nations, and especially of the English, than the\nsentiments of the rest of the world.[1]\n\nAs to what Captain Hall says about the English loyalty to the person of the\nKing--I can only say, I feel none of it. I respect the man while, and only\nwhile, the king is translucent through him: I reverence the glass case for\nthe Saint's sake within; except for that it is to me mere glazier's work,--\nputty, and glass, and wood.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"There exists in England a _gentlemanly_ character, a _gentlemanly_\nfeeling, very different even from that which is most like it,--the\ncharacter of a well-born Spaniard, and unexampled in the rest of Europe.\nThis feeling _originated_ in the fortunate circumstance, that the titles of\nour English nobility follow the law of their property, and are inherited by\nthe eldest sons only. From this source, under the influences of our\nconstitution and of our astonishing trade, it has diffused itself in\ndifferent modifications through the whole country. The uniformity of our\ndress among all classes above that of the day labourer, while it has\nauthorized all ranks to assume the appearance of gentlemen, has at the same\ntime inspired the wish to conform their manners, and still more their\nordinary actions in social intercourse, to their notions of the gentlemanly\nthe most commonly received attribute of which character is a certain\ngenerosity in trifles. On the other hand, the encroachments of the lower\nclasses on the higher, occasioned and favoured by this resemblance in\nexteriors, by this absence of any cognizable marks of distinction, have\nrendered each class more reserved and jealous in their general communion;\nand, far more than our climate or natural temper, have caused that\nhaughtiness and reserve in our outward demeanour, which is so generally\ncomplained of among foreigners. Far be it from me to depreciate the value\nof this gentlemanly feeling: I respect it under all its forms and\nvarieties, from the House of Commons * to the gentleman in the one-shilling\ngallery. It is always the ornament of virtue, and oftentimes a support; but\nit is a wretched substitute for it. Its _worth_, as a moral good, is by no\nmeans in proportion to its _value_ as a social advantage. These\nobservations are not irrelevant: for to the want of reflection that this\ndiffusion of gentlemanly feeling among us is not the growth of our moral\nexcellence, but the effect of various accidental advantages peculiar to\nEngland; to our not considering that it is unreasonable and uncharitable to\nexpect the same consequences, where the same causes have not existed to\nproduce them; and lastly, to our prorieness to regard the absence of this\ncharacter (which, as I have before said, does, for the greater part, and in\nthe common apprehension, consist in a certain frankness and generosity in\nthe detail of action) as decisive against the sum total of personal or\nnational worth; we must, I am convinced, attribute a large portion of that\nconduct, which in many instances has left the inhabitants of countries\nconquered or appropriated by Great Britain doubtful whether the various\nsolid advantages which they have derived from our protection and just\ngovernment were not bought dearly by the wounds inflicted on their feelings\nand prejudices, by the contemptuous and insolent demeanour of the English,\nas individuals.\"--_Friend_, vol. iii. p, 322.\n\nThis was written long before the Reform Act.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_September 8. 1830._\n\nENGLISH REFORMATION.\n\n\nThe fatal error into which the peculiar character of the English\nReformation threw our Church, has borne bitter fruit ever since,--I mean\nthat of its clinging to court and state, instead of cultivating the people.\nThe church ought to be a mediator between the people and the government,\nbetween the poor and the rich. As it is, I fear the Church has let the\nhearts of the common people be stolen from it. See how differently the\nChurch of Rome--wiser in its generation--has always acted in this\nparticular. For a long time past the Church of England seems to me to have\nbeen blighted with prudence, as it is called. I wish with all my heart we\nhad a little zealous imprudence.\n\n\n\n_September 19. 1830._\n\nDEMOCRACY.----IDEA OF A STATE.----CHURCH.\n\n\nIt has never yet been seen, or clearly announced, that democracy, as such,\nis no proper element in the constitution of a state. The idea of a state is\nundoubtedly a government [Greek: ek ton aristou]--an aristocracy. Democracy\nis the healthful life-blood which circulates through the veins and\narteries, which supports the system, but which ought never to appear\nexternally, and as the mere blood itself.\n\nA state, in idea, is the opposite of a church. A state regards classes, and\nnot individuals; and it estimates classes, not by internal merit, but\nexternal accidents, as property, birth, &c. But a church does the reverse\nof this, and disregards all external accidents, and looks at men as\nindividual persons, allowing no gradation of ranks, but such as greater or\nless wisdom, learning, and holiness ought to confer. A church is,\ntherefore, in idea, the only pure democracy. The church, so considered, and\nthe state, exclusively of the church, constitute together the idea of a\nstate in its largest sense.\n\n\n\n\n_September_ 20. 1830.\n\nGOVERNMENT.----FRENCH GEND'ARMERIE.\n\n\nAll temporal government must rest on a compromise of interests and abstract\nrights. Who would listen to the county of Bedford, if it were to declare\nitself disannexed from the British empire, and to set up for itself?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe most desirable thing that can happen to France, with her immense army\nof gensd'armes, is, that the service may at first become very irksome to\nthe men themselves, and ultimately, by not being called into real service,\nfall into general ridicule, like our trained bands. The evil in France, and\nthroughout Europe, seems now especially to be, the subordination of the\nlegislative power to the direct physical force of the people. The French\nlegislature was weak enough before the late revolution; now it is\nabsolutely powerless, and manifestly depends even for its existence on the\nwill of a popular commander of an irresistible army. There is now in France\na daily tendency to reduce the legislative body to a mere deputation from\nthe provinces and towns.\n\n\n\n\nSeptember 21. 1830.\n\nPHILOSOPHY OF YOUNG MEN AT THE PRESENT DAY.\n\n\nI do not know whether I deceive myself, but it seems to me that the young\nmen, who were my contemporaries, fixed certain principles in their minds,\nand followed them out to their legitimate consequences, in a way which I\nrarely witness now. No one seems to have any distinct convictions, right or\nwrong; the mind is completely at sea, rolling and pitching on the waves of\nfacts and personal experiences. Mr. ---- is, I suppose, one of the rising\nyoung men of the day; yet he went on talking, the other evening, and making\nremarks with great earnestness, some of which were palpably irreconcilable\nwith each other. He told me that facts gave birth to, and were the absolute\nground of, principles; to which I said, that unless he had a principle of\nselection, he would not have taken notice of those facts upon which he\ngrounded his principle. You must have a lantern in your hand to give light,\notherwise all the materials in the world are useless, for you cannot find\nthem; and if you could, you could not arrange them. \"But then,\" said Mr.\n----, \"_that_ principle of selection came from facts!\"--\"To be sure!\" I\nreplied; \"but there must have been again an antecedent light to see those\nantecedent facts. The relapse may be carried in imagination backwards for\never,--but go back as you may, you cannot come to a man without a previous\naim or principle.\" He then asked me what I had to say to Bacon's induction:\nI told him I had a good deal to say, if need were; but that it was perhaps\nenough for the occasion to remark, that what he was evidently taking for\nthe Baconian _in_duction was mere _de_duction--a very different thing.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nAs far as I can judge, the most complete and masterly thing ever done by\nMr. Coleridge in prose, is the analysis and reconcilement of the Platonic\nand Baconian methods of philosophy, contained in the third volume of the\nFriend, from p. 176 to 216. No edition of the Novum Organum should ever be\npublished without a transcript of it.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_September_ 22. 1830.\n\nTHUCYDIDES AND TACITUS.----POETRY.----MODERN METRE.\n\n\nThe object of Thucydides was to show the ills resulting to Greece from the\nseparation and conflict of the spirits or elements of democracy and\noligarchy. The object of Tacitus was to demonstrate the desperate\nconsequences of the loss of liberty on the minds and hearts of men.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA poet ought not to pick nature's pocket: let him borrow, and so borrow as\nto repay by the very act of borrowing. Examine nature accurately, but write\nfrom recollection; and trust more to your imagination than to your memory.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nReally the metre of some of the modern poems I have read, bears about the\nsame relation to metre properly understood, that dumb bells do to music;\nboth are for exercise, and pretty severe too, I think.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNothing ever left a stain on that gentle creature's mind, which looked upon\nthe degraded men and things around him like moonshine on a dunghill, which\nshines and takes no pollution. All things are shadows to him, except those\nwhich move his affections.\n\n\n\nSeptember 23. 1830.\n\nLOGIC.\n\n\nThere are two kinds of logic: 1. Syllogistic. 2. Criterional. How any one\ncan by any spinning make out more than ten or a dozen pages about the\nfirst, is inconceivable to me; all those absurd forms of syllogisms are one\nhalf pure sophisms, and the other half mere forms of rhetoric.\n\nAll syllogistic logic is--1. _Se_clusion; 2. _In_clusion; 3. _Con_clusion;\nwhich answer to the understanding, the experience, and the reason. The\nfirst says, this _ought_ to be; the second adds, this _is_; and the last\npronounces, this must be so. The criterional logic, or logic of premisses,\nis, of course, much the most important; and it has never yet been treated.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe object of rhetoric is persuasion,--of logic, conviction,--of grammar,\nsignificancy. A fourth term is wanting, the rhematic, or logic of\nsentences.\n\n\n\n_September_ 24. 1830.\n\nVARRO.--SOCRATES.--GREEK PHILOSOPHY.--PLOTINUS.--TERTULLIAN.\n\n\nWhat a loss we have had in Varro's mythological and critical works! It is\nsaid that the works of Epicurus are probably amongst the Herculanean\nmanuscripts. I do not feel much interest about them, because, by the\nconsent of all antiquity, Lucretius has preserved a complete view of his\nsystem. But I regret the loss of the works of the old Stoics, Zeno and\nothers, exceedingly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSocrates, as such, was only a poetical character to Plato, who worked upon\nhis own ground. The several disciples of Socrates caught some particular\npoints from him, and made systems of philosophy upon them according to\ntheir own views. Socrates himself had no system.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI hold all claims set up for Egypt having given birth to the Greek\nphilosophy, to be groundless. It sprang up in Greece itself, and began with\nphysics only.\n\nThen it took in the idea of a living cause, and made pantheism out of the\ntwo. Socrates introduced ethics, and taught duties; and then, finally,\nPlato asserted or re-asserted the idea of a God the maker of the world. The\nmeasure of human philosophy was thus full, when Christianity came to add\nwhat before was wanting--assurance. After this again, the Neo-Platonists\njoined theurgy with philosophy, which ultimately degenerated into magic and\nmere mysticism.\n\nPlotinus was a man of wonderful ability, and some of the sublimest passages\nI ever read are in his works.\n\nI was amused the other day with reading in Tertullian, that spirits or\ndemons dilate and contract themselves, and wriggle about like worms--\nlumbricix similes.\n\n\n\n\n_September_ 26. 1830.\n\nSCOTCH AND ENGLISH LAKES.\n\n\nThe five finest things in Scotland are--1. Edinburgh; 2. The antechamber of\nthe Fall of Foyers; 3. The view of Loch Lomond from Inch Tavannach, the\nhighest of the islands; 4. The Trosachs; 5. The view of the Hebrides from a\npoint, the name of which I forget. But the intervals between the fine\nthings in Scotland are very dreary;--whereas in Cumberland and Westmoreland\nthere is a cabinet of beauties,--each thing being beautiful in itself, and\nthe very passage from one lake, mountain, or valley, to another, is itself\na beautiful thing again. The Scotch lakes are so like one another, from\ntheir great size, that in a picture you are obliged to read their names;\nbut the English lakes, especially Derwent Water, or rather the whole vale\nof Keswick, is so rememberable, that, after having been once seen, no one\never requires to be told what it is when drawn. This vale is about as large\na basin as Loch Lomond; the latter is covered with water; but in the former\ninstance, we have two lakes with a charming river to connect them, and\nlovely villages at the foot of the mountain, and other habitations, which\ngive an air of life and cheerfulness to the whole place.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe land imagery of the north of Devon is most delightful.\n\n\n\n_September_ 27. 1830.\n\nLOVE AND FRIENDSHIP OPPOSED.--MARRIAGE.--CHARACTERLESSNESS OF WOMEN.\n\nA person once said to me, that he could make nothing of love, except that\nit was friendship accidentally combined with desire. Whence I concluded\nthat he had never been in love. For what shall we say of the feeling which\na man of sensibility has towards his wife with her baby at her breast! How\npure from sensual desire! yet how different from friendship!\n\nSympathy constitutes friendship; but in love there is a sort of antipathy,\nor opposing passion. Each strives to be the other, and both together make\nup one whole.\n\nLuther has sketched the most beautiful picture of the nature, and ends, and\nduties of the wedded life I ever read. St. Paul says it is a great symbol,\nnot mystery, as we translate it.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nGreek: ---- ]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Most women have no character at all,\" said Pope[1] and meant it for\nsatire. Shakspeare, who knew man and woman much better, saw that it, in\nfact, was the perfection of woman to be characterless.\n\nEvery one wishes a Desdemona or Ophelia for a wife,--creatures who, though\nthey may not always understand you, do always feel you, and feel with you.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n  \"Nothing so true as what you once let fall--\n  'Most women have no character at all,'--\n  Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear,\n  And best distinguish'd by black, brown, and fair.\"\n  _Epist. to a Lady_, v. I.],\n\n\n\n_September_ 28. 1830.\n\nMENTAL ANARCHY.\n\n\nWhy need we talk of a fiery hell? If the will, which is the law of our\nnature, were withdrawn from our memory, fancy, understanding, and reason,\nno other hell could equal, for a spiritual being, what we should then feel,\nfrom the anarchy of our powers. It would be conscious madness--a horrid\nthought!\n\n\n\n\nOctober 5. 1830.\n\nEAR AND TASTE FOR MUSIC DIFFERENT.----ENGLISH LITURGY.----BELGIAN\nREVOLUTION.\n\n\nIn politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAn ear for music is a very different thing from a taste for music. I have\nno ear whatever; I could not sing an air to save my life; but I have the\nintensest delight in music, and can detect good from bad. Naldi, a good\nfellow, remarked to me once at a concert, that I did not seem much\ninterested with a piece of Rossini's which had just been performed. I said,\nit sounded to me like nonsense verses. But I could scarcely contain myself\nwhen a thing of Beethoven's followed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never distinctly felt the heavenly superiority of the prayers in the\nEnglish liturgy, till I had attended some kirks in the country parts of\nScotland, I call these strings of school boys or girls which we meet near\nLondon--walking advertisements.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Brussels riot--I cannot bring myself to dignify it with a higher name\n--is a wretched parody on the last French revolution. Were I King William,\nI would banish the Belgians, as Coriolanus banishes the Romans in\nShakspeare.[1]\n\nIt is a wicked rebellion without one just cause.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n  \"You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate\n  As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize\n  As the dead carcasses of unburied men\n  That do corrupt my air, I banish you;\n  And here remain with _your uncertainty!_\"\n    Act iii. sc. 3.]\n\n\n\n_October_ 8. 1830.\n\nGALILEO, NEWTON, KEPLER, BACON.\n\nGalileo was a great genius, and so was Newton; but it would take two or\nthree Galileos and Newtons to make one Kepler.[1] It is in the order of\nProvidence, that the inventive, generative, constitutive mind--the Kepler--\nshould come first; and then that the patient and collective mind--the\nNewton--should follow, and elaborate the pregnant queries and illumining\nguesses of the former. The laws of the planetary system are, in fact, due\nto Kepler. There is not a more glorious achievement of scientific genius\nupon record, than Kepler's guesses, prophecies, and ultimate apprehension\nof the law[2] of the mean distances of the planets as connected with the\nperiods of their revolutions round the sun. Gravitation, too, he had fully\nconceived; but, because it seemed inconsistent with some received\nobservations on light, he gave it up, in allegiance, as he says, to Nature.\nYet the idea vexed and haunted his mind; _\"Vexat me et lacessit,\"_ are his\nwords, I believe.\n\nWe praise Newton's clearness and steadiness. He was clear and steady, no\ndoubt, whilst working out, by the help of an admirable geometry, the idea\nbrought forth by another. Newton had his ether, and could not rest in--he\ncould not conceive--the idea of a law. He thought it a physical thing after\nall. As for his chronology, I believe, those who are most competent to\njudge, rely on it less and less every day. His lucubrations on Daniel and\nthe Revelations seem to me little less than mere raving.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nGalileo Galilei was born at Pisa, on the 15th of February, 1564. John\nKepler was born at Weil, in the duchy of Wirtemberg, on the 2lst of\nDecember, 1571.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nNamely, that the squares of their times vary as the cubes of their\ndistances,--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPersonal experiment is necessary, in order to correct our own observation\nof the experiments which Nature herself makes for us--I mean, the phenomena\nof the universe. But then observation is, in turn, wanted to direct and\nsubstantiate the course of experiment. Experiments alone cannot advance\nknowledge, without observation; they amuse for a time, and then pass off\nthe scene and leave no trace behind them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBacon, when like himself--for no man was ever more inconsistent--says,\n_\"Prudens qiuestio--dimidium scienti\u00e6 est.\"_\n\n\n\n\n_October_ 20. 1830.\n\nTHE REFORMATION.\n\n\nAt the Reformation, the first reformers were beset with an almost morbid\nanxiety not to be considered heretical in point of doctrine. They knew that\nthe Romanists were on the watch to fasten the brand of heresy upon them\nwhenever a fair pretext could be found; and I have no doubt it was the\nexcess of this fear which at once led to the burning of Servetus, and also\nto the thanks offered by all the Protestant churches, to Calvin and the\nChurch of Geneva, for burning him.\n\n\n\n_November_ 21. 1830.\n\nHOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\n---- never makes a figure in quietude. He astounds the vulgar with a\ncertain enormity of exertion; he takes an acre of canvass, on which he\nscrawls every thing. He thinks aloud; every thing in his mind, good, bad,\nor indifferent, out it comes; he is like the Newgate gutter, flowing with\ngarbage, dead dogs, and mud. He is preeminently a man of many thoughts,\nwith no ideas: hence he is always so lengthy, because he must go through\nevery thing to see any thing.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nIt is a melancholy thing to live when there is no vision in the land. Where\nare our statesmen to meet this emergency? I see no reformer who asks\nhimself the question, _What_ is it that I propose to myself to effect in\nthe result?\n\nIs the House of Commons to be re-constructed on the principle of a\nrepresentation of interests, or of a delegation of men? If on the former,\nwe may, perhaps, see our way; if on the latter, you can never, in reason,\nstop short of universal suffrage; and in that case, I am sure that women\nhave as good a right to vote as men.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn Mr. Coleridge's masterly analysis and confutation of the physiocratic\nsystem of the early French revolutionists, in the Friend, he has the\nfollowing passage in the nature of a _reductio ad absurdum_. \"Rousseau,\nindeed, asserts that there is an inalienable sovereignty inherent in every\nhuman being possessed of reason; and from this the framers of the\nConstitution of 1791 deduce, that the people itself is its own sole\nrightful legislator, and at most dare only recede so far from its right as\nto delegate to chosen deputies the power of representing and declaring the\ngeneral will. But this is wholly without proof; for it has been already\nfully shown, that, according to the principle out of which this consequence\nis attempted to be drawn, it is not the actual man, but the abstract reason\nalone, that is the sovereign and rightful lawgiver. The confusion of two\nthings so different is so gross an error, that the Constituent Assembly\ncould scarce proceed a step in their declaration of rights, without some\nglaring inconsistency. Children are excluded from all political power; are\nthey not human beings in whom the faculty of reason resides? Yes! but|in\n_them_ the faculty is not yet adequately developed. But are not gross\nignorance, inveterate superstition, and the habitual tyranny of passion and\nsensuality, equally preventives of the developement, equally impediments to\nthe rightful exercise, of the reason, as childhood and early youth? Who\nwould not rely on the judgment of a well-educated English lad, bred in a\nvirtuous and enlightened family, in preference to that of a brutal Russian,\nwho believes that he can scourge his wooden idol into good humour, or\nattributes to himself the merit of perpetual prayer, when he has fastened\nthe petitions, which his priest has written for him, on the wings of a\nwindmill? Again: women are likewise excluded; a full half, and that\nassuredly the most innocent, the most amiable half, of the whole human race\nis excluded, and this too by a Constitution which boasts to have no other\nfoundations but those of universal reason! Is reason, then, an affair of\nsex? No! but women are commonly in a state of dependence, and are not\nlikely to exercise their reason with freedom. Well! and does not this\nground of exclusion apply with equal or greater force to the poor, to the\ninfirm, to men in embarrassed circumstances, to all, in short, whose\nmaintenance, be it scanty, or be it ample, depends on the will of others?\nHow far are we to go? Where must we stop? What classes should we admit?\nWhom must we disfranchise? The objects concerning whom we are to determine\nthese questions, are all human beings, and differenced from each other by\n_degrees_ only, these degrees, too, oftentimes changing. Yet the principle\non which the whole system rests, is that reason is not susceptible of\ndegree. Nothing, therefore, which subsists wholly in degrees, the changes\nof which do not obey any necessary law, can be the object of pure science,\nor determinate by mere reason,\"--Vol. i. p. 341, ED.]\n\n\n\n_March_ 20. 1831.\n\nGOVERNMENT.--EARL GREY.\n\n\nGovernment is not founded on property, taken merely as such, in the\nabstract; it is founded on _unequal_ property; the inequality is an\nessential term in the position. The phrases--higher, middle, and lower\nclasses, with reference to this point of representation--are delusive; no\nsuch divisions as classes actually exist in society. There is an\nindissoluble blending and interfusion of persons from top to bottom; and no\nman can trace a line of separation through them, except such a confessedly\nunmeaning and unjustifiable line of political empiricism as 10_l_.\nhouseholders. I cannot discover a ray of principle in the government plan,\n--not a hint of the effect of the change upon the balance of the estates of\nthe realm,--not a remark on the nature of the constitution of England, and\nthe character of the property of so many millions of its inhabitants. Half\nthe wealth of this country is purely artificial,--existing only in and on\nthe credit given to it by the integrity and honesty of the nation. This\nproperty appears, in many instances, a heavy burthen to the numerical\nmajority of the people, and they believe that it causes all their distress:\nand they are now to have the maintenance of this property committed to\ntheir good faith--the lamb to the wolves!\n\nNecker, you remember, asked the people to come and help him against the\naristocracy. The people came fast enough at his bidding; but, somehow or\nother, they would not go away again when they had done their work. I hope\nLord Grey will not see himself or his friends in the woeful case of the\nconjuror, who, with infinite zeal and pains, called up the devils to do\nsomething for him. They came at the word, thronging about him, grinning,\nand howling, and dancing, and whisking their long tails in diabolic glee;\nbut when they asked him what he wanted of them, the poor wretch, frightened\nout his of wits, could only stammer forth,--\"I pray you, my friends, be\ngone down again!\" At which the devils, with one voice, replied,--\n\n  \"Yes! yes! we'll go down! we'll go down!--\n  But we'll take _you_ with us to swim or to drown!\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge must have been thinking of that \"very pithy and profitable\"\nballad by the Laureate, wherein is shown how a young man \"would read\nunlawful books, and how he was punished:\"--\n\n  \"The _young_ man, he began to read\n  He knew not what, but he would proceed,\n  When there was heard a sound at the door,\n  Which as he read on grew more and more.\n\n  \"And more and more the knocking grew,\n  The young man knew not what to do:\n  But trembling in fear he sat within,\n  _Till the door was broke, and the devil came in_.\n\n  \"'What would'st thou with me?' the wicked one cried;\n  But not a word the young man replied;\n  Every hair on his head was standing upright,\n  And his limbs like a palsy shook with affright.\n\n  \"'What would'st thou with me?' cried the author of ill;\n  But the wretched young man was silent still,\" &c.\n\nThe catastrophe is very terrible, and the moral, though addressed by the\npoet to young men only, is quite as applicable to old men, as the times\nshow.\n\n  \"Henceforth let all young men take heed\n  How in a conjuror's books they read!\"\n_Southey's Minor Poems_, vol. iii. p. 92.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_June_ 25. 1831.\n\nGOVERNMENT.--POPULAR REPRESENTATION.\n\nThe three great ends which a statesman ought to propose to himself in the\ngovernment of a nation, are,--1. Security to possessors; 2. Facility to\nacquirers; and; 3. Hope to all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nA nation is the unity of a people. King and parliament are the unity made\nvisible. The king and the peers are as integral portions of this manifested\nunity as the commons.[1]\n\nIn that imperfect state of society in which our system of representation\nbegan, the interests of the country were pretty exactly commensurate with\nits municipal divisions. The counties, the towns, and the seaports,\naccurately enough represented the only interests then existing; that is\nsay,--the landed, the shop-keeping or manufacturing, and the mercantile.\nBut for a century past, at least, this division has become notoriously\nimperfect, some of the most vital interests of the empire being now totally\nunconnected with any English localities. Yet now, when the evil and the\nwant are known, we are to abandon the accommodations which the necessity of\nthe case had worked out for itself, and begin again with a rigidly\nterritorial plan of representation! The miserable tendency of all is to\ndestroy our nationality, which consists, in a principal degree, in our\nrepresentative government, and to convert it into a degrading delegation of\nthe populace. There is no unity for a people but in a representation of\nnational interests; a delegation from the passions or wishes of the\nindividuals themselves is a rope of sand. Undoubtedly it is a great evil,\nthat there should be such an evident discrepancy between the law and the\npractice of the constitution in the matter of the representation. Such a\ndirect, yet clandestine, contravention of solemn resolutions and\nestablished laws is immoral, and greatly injurious to the cause of legal\nloyalty and general subordination in the minds of the people. But then a\nstatesman should consider that these very contraventions of law in practice\npoint out to him the places in the body politic which need a remodelling of\nthe law. You acknowledge a certain necessity for indirect representation in\nthe present day, and that such representation has been instinctively\nobtained by means contrary to law; why then do you not approximate the\nuseless law to the useful practice, instead of abandoning both law and\npractice for a completely new system of your own?\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge was very fond of quoting George Withers's fine lines:--\n\n  \"Let not your king and parliament in one,\n  Much less apart, mistake themselves for that\n  Which is most worthy to be thought upon:\n  Nor think _they_ are, essentially, The STATE.\n  Let them not fancy that th' authority\n  And privileges upon them bestown,\n  Conferr'd are to set up a majesty,\n  A power, or a glory, of their own!\n  But let them know, 't was for a deeper life,\n  Which they but _represent_--\n  That there's on earth a yet auguster thing,\n  Veil'd though it be, than parliament and king!\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe malignant duplicity and unprincipled tergiversations of the specific\nWhig newspapers are to me detestable. I prefer the open endeavours of those\npublications which seek to destroy the church, and introduce a republic in\neffect: there is a sort of honesty in _that_ which I approve, though I\nwould with joy lay down my life to save my country from the consummation\nwhich is so evidently desired by that section of the periodical press.\n\n\n\n_June_ 26. 1831.\n\nNAPIER.--BUONAPARTE.--SOUTHEY.\n\n\nI have been exceedingly impressed with the evil precedent of Colonel\nNapier's History of the Peninsular War. It is a specimen of the true French\nmilitary school; not a thought for the justice of the war,--not a\nconsideration of the damnable and damning iniquity of the French invasion.\nAll is looked at as a mere game of exquisite skill, and the praise is\nregularly awarded to the most successful player. How perfectly ridiculous\nis the prostration of Napier's mind, apparently a powerful one, before the\nname of Buonaparte! I declare I know no book more likely to undermine the\nnational sense of right and wrong in matters of foreign interference than\nthis work of Napier's.\n\nIf A. has a hundred means of doing a certain thing, and B. has only one or\ntwo, is it very wonderful, or does it argue very transcendant superiority,\nif A. surpasses B.? Buonaparte was the child of circumstances, which he\nneither originated nor controlled. He had no chance of preserving his power\nbut by continual warfare. No thought of a wise tranquillization of the\nshaken elements of France seems ever to have passed through his mind; and I\nbelieve that at no part of his reign could be have survived one year's\ncontinued peace. He never had but one obstacle to contend with--physical\nforce; commonly the least difficult enemy a general, subject to courts-\nmartial and courts of conscience, has to overcome.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nSouthey's History[1] is on the right side, and starts from the right point;\nbut he is personally fond of the Spaniards, and in bringing forward their\nnationality in the prominent manner it deserves, he does not, in my\njudgment, state with sufficient clearness the truth, that the nationality\nof the Spaniards was not founded on any just ground of good government or\nwise laws, but was, in fact, very little more than a rooted antipathy to\nall strangers as such.\n\nIn this sense every thing is national in Spain. Even their so called\nCatholic religion is exclusively national in a genuine Spaniard's mind; he\ndoes not regard the religious professions of the Frenchman or Italian at\nall in the same light with his own.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge said that the conclusion of this great work was the finest\nspecimen of historic eulogy he had ever read in English;--that it was more\nthan a campaign to the duke's fame.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 7. 1831.\n\nPATRONAGE OF THE FINE ARTS.--OLD WOMEN.\n\n\nThe darkest despotisms on the Continent have done more for the growth and\nelevation of the fine arts than the English government. A great musical\ncomposer in Germany and Italy is a great man in society, and a real dignity\nand rank are universally conceded to him. So it is with a sculptor, or\npainter, or architect. Without this sort of encouragement and patronage\nsuch arts as music and painting will never come into great eminence. In\nthis country there is no general reverence for the fine arts; and the\nsordid spirit of a money-amassing philosophy would meet any proposition for\nthe fostering of art, in a genial and extended sense, with the commercial\nmaxim,--_Laissez faire_. Paganini, indeed, will make a fortune, because he\ncan actually sell the tones of his fiddle at so much a scrape; but Mozart\nhimself might have languished in a garret for any thing that would have\nbeen done for him here.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThere are three classes into which all the women past seventy that ever I\nknew were to be divided:--1. That dear old soul; 2. That old woman; 3. That\nold witch.\n\n\n\n_July_ 24. 1831.\n\nPICTURES.[1]\n\n\nObserve the remarkable difference between Claude and Teniers in their power\nof painting vacant space. Claude makes his whole landscape a _plenum:_ the\nair is quite as substantial as any other part of the scene. Hence there are\nno true distances, and every thing presses at once and equally upon the\neye. There is something close and almost suffocating in the atmosphere of\nsome of Claude's sunsets. Never did any one paint air, the thin air, the\nabsolutely apparent vacancy between object and object, so admirably as\nTeniers. That picture of the Archers[2] exemplifies this excellence. See\nthe distances between those ugly louts! how perfectly true to the fact!\n\nBut oh! what a wonderful picture is that Triumph of Silenus![3] It is the\nvery revelry of hell. Every evil passion is there that could in any way be\nforced into juxtaposition with joyance. Mark the lust, and, hard by, the\nhate. Every part is pregnant with libidinous nature without one spark of\nthe grace of Heaven. The animal is triumphing--not over, but--in the\nabsence, in the non-existence, of the spiritual part of man. I could fancy\nthat Rubens had seen in a vision--\n\n  All the souls that damned be\n  Leap up at once in anarchy,\n  Clap their hands, and dance for glee!\n\nThat landscape[4] on the other side is only less magnificent than dear Sir\nGeorge Beaumont's, now in the National Gallery. It has the same charm.\nRubens does not take for his subjects grand or novel conformations of\nobjects; he has, you see, no precipices, no forests, no frowning castles,--\nnothing that a poet would take at all times, and a painter take in these\ntimes. No; he gets some little ponds, old tumble-down cottages, that\nruinous ch\u00e2teau, two or three peasants, a hay-rick, and other such humble\nimages, which looked at in and by themselves convey no pleasure and excite\nno surprise; but he--and he Peter Paul Rubens alone--handles these every-\nday ingredients of all common landscapes as they are handled in nature; he\nthrows them into a vast and magnificent whole, consisting of heaven and\nearth and all things therein. He extracts the latent poetry out of these\ncommon objects,--that poetry and harmony which every man of genius\nperceives in the face of nature, and which many men of no genius are taught\nto perceive and feel after examining such a picture as this. In other\nlandscape painters the scene is confined and as it were imprisoned;--in\nRubens the landscape dies a natural death; it fades away into the apparent\ninfinity of space.\n\nSo long as Rubens confines himself to space and outward figure--to the mere\nanimal man with animal passions--he is, I may say, a god amongst painters.\nHis satyrs, Silenuses, lions, tigers, and dogs, are almost godlike; but the\nmoment he attempts any thing involving or presuming the spiritual, his gods\nand goddesses, his nymphs and heroes, become beasts, absolute, unmitigated\nbeasts.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nAll the following remarks in this section were made at the exhibition of\nancient masters at the British Gallery in Pall Mall. The recollection of\nthose two hours has made the rooms of that Institution a melancholy place\nfor me. Mr. Coleridge was in high spirits, and seemed to kindle in his mind\nat the contemplation of the splendid pictures before him. He did not\nexamine them all by the catalogue, but anchored himself before some three\nor four great works, telling me that he saw the rest of the Gallery\n_potentially_. I can yet distinctly recall him, half leaning on his old\nsimple stick, and his hat off in one hand, whilst with the fingers of the\nother he went on, as was his constant wont, figuring in the air a\ncommentary of small diagrams, wherewith, as he fancied, he could translate\nto the eye those relations of form and space which his words might fail to\nconvey with clearness to the ear. His admiration for Rubens showed itself\nin a sort of joy and brotherly fondness; he looked as if he would shake\nhands with his pictures. What the company, which by degrees formed itself\nround this silver-haired, bright-eyed, music-breathing, old man, took him\nfor, I cannot guess; there was probably not one there who knew him to be\nthat Ancient Mariner, who held people with his glittering eye, and\nconstrained them, like three years' children, to hear his tale. In the\nmidst of his speech, he turned to the right hand, where stood a very lovely\nyoung woman, whose attention he had involuntarily arrested;--to her,\nwithout apparently any consciousness of her being a stranger to him, he\naddressed many remarks, although I must acknowledge they were couched in a\nsomewhat softer tone, as if he were soliciting her sympathy. He was,\nverily, a gentle-hearted man at all times; but I never was in company with\nhim in my life, when the entry of a woman, it mattered not who, did not\nprovoke a dim gush of emotion, which passed like an infant's breath over\nthe mirror of his intellect.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"Figures shooting at a Target,\" belonging, I believe, to Lord Bandon.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 3: This belongs to Sir Robert Peel.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 4:\n\"Landscape with setting Sun,\"--Lord Farnborough's picture.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe Italian masters differ from the Dutch in this--that in their pictures\nages are perfectly ideal. The infant that Raffael's Madonna holds in her\narms cannot be guessed of any particular age; it is Humanity in infancy.\nThe babe in the manger in a Dutch painting is a fac-simile of some real\nnew-born bantling; it is just like the little rabbits we fathers have all\nseen with some dismay at first burst.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCarlo Dolce's representations of our Saviour are pretty, to be sure; but\nthey are too smooth to please me. His Christs are always in sugar-candy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThat is a very odd and funny picture of the Connoisseurs\nat Rome[1] by Reynolds.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Portraits of distinguished Connoisseurs painted at Rome,\"--belonging to\nLord Burlington.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nThe more I see of modern pictures, the more I am convinced that the ancient\nart of painting is gone, and something substituted for it,--very pleasing,\nbut different, and different in kind and not in degree only. Portraits by\nthe old masters,--take for example the pock-fritten lady by Cuyp[1]--are\npictures of men and women: they fill, not merely occupy, a space; they\nrepresent individuals, but individuals as types of a species.\n\n\nModern portraits--a few by Jackson and Owen, perhaps, excepted--give you\nnot the man, not the inward humanity, but merely the external mark, that in\nwhich Tom is different from Bill. There is something affected and\nmeretricious in the Snake in the Grass[2] and such pictures, by Reynolds.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI almost forget, but have some recollection that the allusion is to Mr.\nHeneage Finch's picture of a Lady with a Fan.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Sir Robert Peel's.--ED.]\n\n\n\nJuly 25. 1831.\n\nCHILLINGWORTH.--SUPERSTITION OF MALTESE, SICILIANS, AND ITALIANS.\n\n\nIt is now twenty years since I read Chillingworth's book[1]; but certainly\nit seemed to me that his main position, that the mere text of the Bible is\nthe sole and exclusive ground of Christian faith and practice, is quite\nuntenable against the Romanists. It entirely destroys the conditions of a\nchurch, of an authority residing in a religious community, and all that\nholy sense of brotherhood which is so sublime and consolatory to a\nmeditative Christian. Had I been a Papist, I should not have wished for a\nmore vanquishable opponent in controversy. I certainly believe\nChillingworth to have been in some sense a Socinian. Lord Falkland, his\nfriend, said so in substance. I do not deny his skill in dialectics; he was\nmore than a match for Knott[2] to be sure.\n\nI must be bold enough to say, that I do not think that even Hooker puts the\nidea of a church on the true foundation.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation; or, an Answer to a\nBooke entitled 'Mercy and Truth; or, Charity maintained by Catholicks,'\nwhich pretends to prove the contrary.\"]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nSocinianism, or some inclination that way, is an old and clinging charge\nagainst Chillingworth. On the one hand, it is well known that he subscribed\nthe articles of the church of England, in the usual form, on the 20th of\nJuly, 1638; and on the other, it is equally certain that within two years\nimmediately previous, he wrote the letter to some unnamed correspondent,\nbeginning \"Dear Harry,\" and printed in all the Lives of Chillingworth, in\nwhich letter he sums up his arguments upon the Arian doctrine in this\npassage:--\"In a word, whosoever shall freely and impartially consider of\nthis thing, and how on the other side the ancient fathers' weapons against\nthe Arrians are in a manner only places of Scripture (and these now for the\nmost part discarded as importunate and unconcluding), and how in the\nargument drawn from the authority of the ancient fathers, they are almost\nalways defendants, and scarse ever opponents, _he shall not choose but\nconfesses or at least be very inclinable to beleeve, that the doctrine of\nArrius is eyther a truth, or at least no damnable heresy_.\" The truth is,\nhowever, that the Socinianism of Chillingworth, such as it may have been,\nhad more reference to the doctrine of the redemption of man than of the\nbeing of God.\n\nEdward Knott's real name was Matthias Wilson.--ED.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe superstition of the peasantry and lower orders generally in Malta,\nSicily, and Italy exceeds common belief. It is unlike the superstition of\nSpain, which is a jealous fanaticism, having reference to their\ncatholicism, and always glancing on heresy. The popular superstition of\nItaly is the offspring of the climate, the old associations, the manners,\nand the very names of the places. It is pure paganism, undisturbed by any\nanxiety about orthodoxy, or animosity against heretics. Hence, it is much\nmore good-natured and pleasing to a traveller's feelings, and certainly not\na whit less like the true religion of our dear Lord than the gloomy\nidolatry of the Spaniards.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI well remember, when in Valetta in 1805, asking a boy who waited on me,\nwhat a certain procession, then passing, was, and his answering with great\nquickness, that it was Jesus Christ, _who lives here (sta di casa qui)_,\nand when he comes out, it is in the shape of a wafer. But, \"Eccelenza,\"\nsaid he, smiling and correcting himself, \"non \u00e8 Cristiano.\"[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe following anecdote related by Mr. Coleridge, in April, 1811, was\npreserved and communicated to me by Mr. Justice Coleridge:--\"As I was\ndescending from Mount AEtna with a very lively talkative guide, we passed\nthrough a village (I think called) Nicolozzi, when the host happened to be\npassing through the street. Every one was prostrate; my guide became so;\nand, not to be singular, I went down also. After resuming our journey, I\nobserved in my guide an unusual seriousness and long silence, which, after\nmany _hums_ and _hahs_, was interrupted by a low bow, and leave requested\nto ask a question. This was of course granted, and the ensuing dialogue\ntook place. Guide. \"Signor, are you then a Christian?\" Coleridge. \"I hope\nso.\" G. \"What! are all Englishmen Christians?\" C. \"I hope and trust they\nare.\" G. \"What! are you not Turks? Are you not damned eternally?\" C. \"I\ntrust not, through Christ.\" G. \"What! you believe in Christ then?\" C.\n\"Certainly.\" This answer produced another long silence. At length my guide\nagain spoke, still doubting the grand point of my Christianity. G. \"I'm\nthinking, Signor, what is the difference between you and us, that you are\nto be certainly damned?\" C. \"Nothing very material; nothing that can\nprevent our both going to heaven, I hope. We believe in the Father, the\nSon, and the Holy Ghost.\" G. (interrupting me) \"Oh those damned priests!\nwhat liars they are! But (pausing) we can't do without them; we can't go to\nheaven without them. But tell me, Signor, what _are_ the differences?\" C.\n\"Why, for instance, we do not worship the Virgin.\" G. \"And why not,\nSignor?\" C. \"Because, though holy and pure, we think her still a woman,\nand, therefore, do not pay her the honour due to God.\" G. \"But do you not\nworship Jesus, who sits on the right hand of God?\" C. \"We do.\" G. \"Then why\nnot worship the Virgin, who sits on the left?\" C. \"I did not know she did.\nIf you can show it me in the Scriptures, I shall readily agree to worship\nher.\" \"Oh,\" said my man, with uncommon triumph, and cracking his fingers,\n\"sicuro, Signor! sicuro, Signor!\"\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 30. 1831.\n\nASGILL.--THE FRENCH.\n\n\nAsgill was an extraordinary man, and his pamphlet[1] is invaluable. He\nundertook to prove that man is literally immortal; or, rather, that any\ngiven living man might probably never die. He complains of the cowardly\npractice of dying. He was expelled from two Houses of Commons for blasphemy\nand atheism, as was pretended;--really I suspect because he was a staunch\nHanoverian. I expected to find the ravings of an enthusiast, or the sullen\nsnarlings of an infidel; whereas I found the very soul of Swift--an intense\nhalf self-deceived humorism. I scarcely remember elsewhere such uncommon\nskill in logic, such lawyer-like acuteness, and yet such a grasp of common\nsense. Each of his paragraphs is in itself a whole, and yet a link between\nthe preceding and following; so that the entire series forms one argument,\nand yet each is a diamond in itself.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"An argument proving, that, according to the covenant of eternal life,\nrevealed in the Scriptures, man may be translated from hence, without\npassing through death, although the human nature of Christ himself could\nnot be thus translated, till he had passed through death.\" Asgill died in\nthe year 1738, in the King's Bench prison, where he had been a prisoner for\ndebt thirty years.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWas there ever such a miserable scene as that of the exhibition of the\nAustrian standards in the French house of peers the other day?[1] Every\nother nation but the French would see that it was an exhibition of their\nown falsehood and cowardice. A man swears that the property intrusted to\nhim is burnt, and then, when he is no longer afraid, produces it, and\nboasts of the atmosphere of \"_honour_,\" through which the lie did not\ntranspire.\n\nFrenchmen are like grains of gunpowder,--each by itself smutty and\ncontemptible, but mass them together and they are terrible indeed.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nWhen the allies were in Paris in 1815, all the Austrian standards were\nreclaimed. The answer was that they had been burnt by the soldiers at the\nH\u00f4tel des Invalides. This was untrue. The Marquis de Semonville confessed\nwith pride that he, knowing of the fraud, had concealed these standards,\ntaken from Mack at Ulm in 1805, in a vault under the Luxemburg palace. \"An\ninviolable asylum,\" said the Marquis in his speech to the peers, \"formed in\nthe vault of this hall has protected this treasure from every search.\nVainly, during this long space of time, have the most authoritative\nresearches endeavoured to penetrate the secret. It would have been culpable\nto reveal it, as long as we were liable to the demands of haughty\nforeigners. No one in this atmosphere of honour is capable of so great a\nweakness,\" &c.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 1. 1831.\n\n\nAs there is much beast and some devil in man; so is there some angel and\nsome God in him. The beast and the devil may be conquered, but in this life\nnever destroyed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI will defy any one to answer the arguments of a St. Simonist, except on\nthe ground of Christianity--its precepts and its assurances.\n\n\n\n\n\n_August_ 6. 1831.\n\nTHE GOOD AND THE TRUE.--ROMISH RELIGION.\n\n\nThere is the love of the good for the good's sake, and the love of the\ntruth for the truth's sake. I have known many, especially women, love the\ngood for the good's sake; but very few, indeed, and scarcely one woman,\nlove the truth for the truth's sake. Yet; without the latter, the former\nmay become, as it has a thousand times been, the source of persecution of\nthe truth,--the pretext and motive of inquisitorial cruelty and party\nzealotry. To see clearly that the love of the good and the true is\nultimately identical--is given only to those who love both sincerely and\nwithout any foreign ends.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLook through the whole history of countries professing the Romish religion,\nand you will uniformly find the leaven of this besetting and accursed\nprinciple of action--that the end will sanction any means.\n\n\n\n\n_August_ 8. 1831.\n\nENGLAND AND HOLLAND.\n\n\nThe conduct of this country to King William of Holland has been, in my\njudgment, base and unprincipled beyond any thing in our history since the\ntimes of Charles the Second. Certainly, Holland is one of the most\nimportant allies that England has; and we are doing our utmost to subject\nit, and Portugal, to French influence, or even dominion! Upon my word, the\nEnglish people, at this moment, are like a man palsied in every part of his\nbody but one, in which one part he is so morbidly sensitive that he cannot\nbear to have it so much as breathed upon, whilst you may pinch him with a\nhot forceps elsewhere without his taking any notice of it.\n\n\n\n_August_ 8. 1831.\n\nIRON.--GALVANISM.--HEAT.\n\n\nIron is the most ductile of all hard metals, and the hardest of all ductile\nmetals. With the exception of nickel, in which it is dimly seen, iron is\nthe only metal in which the magnetic power is visible. Indeed, it is almost\nimpossible to purify nickel of iron.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGalvanism is the union of electricity and magnetism, and, by being\ncontinuous, it exhibits an image of life;--I say, an image only: it is\nlife in death.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHeat is the mesothesis or indifference of light and matter.\n\n\n\n_August_ 14. 1831.\n\nNATIONAL COLONIAL CHARACTER, AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE.\n\n\nThe character of most nations in their colonial dependencies is in an\ninverse ratio of excellence to their character at home. The best people in\nthe mother-country will generally be the worst in the colonies; the worst\nat home will be the best abroad. Or, perhaps, I may state it less\noffensively thus:--The colonists of a well governed-country will\ndegenerate; those of an ill-governed country will improve. I am now\nconsidering the natural tendency of such colonists if left to themselves;\nof course, a direct act of the legislature of the mother-country will break\nin upon this. Where this tendency is exemplified, the cause is obvious. In\ncountries well governed and happily conditioned, none, or very few, but\nthose who are desperate through vice or folly, or who are mere trading\nadventurers, will be willing to leave their homes and settle in another\nhemisphere; and of those who do go, the best and worthiest are always\nstriving to acquire the means of leaving the colony, and of returning to\ntheir native land. In ill-governed and ill-conditioned countries, on the\ncontrary, the most respectable of the people are willing and anxious to\nemigrate for the chance of greater security and enlarged freedom; and if\nthey succeed in obtaining these blessings in almost any degree, they have\nlittle inducement, on the average, to wish to abandon their second and\nbetter country. Hence, in the former case, the colonists consider\nthemselves as mere strangers, sojourners, birds of passage, and shift to\nlive from hand to mouth, with little regard to lasting improvement of the\nplace of their temporary commerce; whilst, in the latter case, men feel\nattached to a community to which they are individually indebted for\notherwise unattainable benefits, and for the most part learn to regard it\nas their abode, and to make themselves as happy and comfortable in it as\npossible. I believe that the internal condition and character of the\nEnglish and French West India islands of the last century amply verified\nthis distinction; the Dutch colonists most certainly did, and have always\ndone.\n\nAnalogous to this, though not founded on precisely the same principle, is\nthe fact that the severest naval discipline is always found in the ships of\nthe freest nations, and the most lax discipline in the ships of the most\noppressed. Hence, the naval discipline of the Americans is the sharpest;\nthen that of the English;[1] then that of the French (I speak as it used to\nbe); and on board a Spanish ship, there is no discipline at all.\n\nAt Genoa, the word \"Liberty\" is, or used to be, engraved on the chains of\nthe galley-slaves, and the doors of the dungeons.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis expression needs explanation. It _looks_ as if Mr. Coleridge rated the\ndegree of liberty enjoyed by the English, _after_ that of the citizens of\nthe United States; but he meant no such thing. His meaning was, that the\nform of government of the latter was more democratic, and formally assigned\nmore power to each individual. The Americans, as a nation, had no better\nfriend in England than Coleridge; he contemplated their growth with\ninterest, and prophesied highly of their destiny, whether under their\npresent or other governments. But he well knew their besetting faults and\ntheir peculiar difficulties, and was most deliberately of opinion that the\nEnglish had, for 130 years last past, possessed a measure of individual\nfreedom and social dignity which had never been equalled, much less\nsurpassed, in any other country ancient or modern. There is a passage in\nMr. Coleridge's latest publication (Church and State}, which clearly\nexpresses his opinion upon this subject: \"It has been frequently and truly\nobserved that in England, where the ground-plan, the skeleton, as it were,\nof the government is a monarchy, at once buttressed and limited by the\naristocracy (the assertions of its popular character finding a better\nsupport in the harangues and theories of popular men, than in state\ndocuments, and the records of clear history), afar greater degree of\nliberty is, and long has been, enjoyed, than ever existed in, the\nostensibly freest, that is, most democratic, commonwealths of ancient or\nmodern times; greater, indeed, and with a more decisive predominance of the\nspirit of freedom, than the wisest and most philanthropic statesmen of\nantiquity, or than the great commonwealth's men,--the stars of that narrow\ninterspace of blue sky between the black clouds of the first and second\nCharles's reigns--believed compatible, the one with the safety of the\nstate, the other with the interests of morality. Yes! for little less than\na century and a half, Englishmen have, collectively and individually, lived\nand acted with fewer restraints on their free-agency, than the citizens of\nany known republic, past or present.\" (p. 120.) Upon which he subjoins the\nfollowing note: \"It will be thought, perhaps, that the United States of\nNorth America should have been excepted. But the identity of stock,\nlanguage, customs, manners, and laws scarcely allows us to consider this an\nexception, even though it were quite certain both that it is and that it\nwill continue such. It was at all events a remark worth remembering, which\nI once heard from a traveller (a prejudiced one, I must admit), that where\nevery man may take, liberties, there is little liberty for any man; or,\nthat where every man takes liberties, no man can enjoy any.\" (p. 121.) See\nalso a passage to the like effect in the _Friend_, vol. i. p. 129--ED.]\n\n\n\nAugust 15. 1831.\n\nENGLAND.--HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.\n\n\nI cannot contain my indignation at the conduct of our government towards\nHolland. They have undoubtedly forgotten the true and well-recognized\npolicy of this country in regard to Portugal in permitting the war faction\nin France to take possession of the Tagus, and to bully the Portuguese\nupon so flimsy--indeed, false--a pretext[1] yet, in this instance,\nsomething may be said for them.\n\nMiguel is such a wretch, that I acknowledge a sort of morality in leaving\nhim to be cuffed and insulted; though, of course, this is a poor answer to\na statesman who alleges the interest and policy of the country. But, as to\nthe Dutch and King William: the first, as a nation, the most ancient ally,\nthe _alter idem_ of England, the best deserving of the cause of freedom\nand religion and morality of any people in Europe; and the second, the\nvery best sovereign now in Christendom, with, perhaps, the single\nexception of the excellent king of Sweden[2]--was ever any thing so mean\nand cowardly as the behaviour of England!\n\nThe Five Powers have, throughout this conference, been actuated exclusively\nby a selfish desire to preserve peace--I should rather say, to smother war\n--at the expense of a most valuable but inferior power. They have over and\nover again acknowledged the justice of the Dutch claims, and the absurdity\nof the Belgian pretences; but as the Belgians were also as impudent as they\nwere iniquitous,--as they would not yield _their_ point, why then--that\npeace may be preserved--the Dutch must yield theirs! A foreign prince comes\ninto Belgium, pending these negotiations, and takes an unqualified oath to\nmaintain the Belgian demands:--what could King William or the Dutch do, if\nthey ever thereafter meant to call themselves independent, but resist and\nresent this outrage to the uttermost? It was a crisis in which every\nconsideration of state became inferior to the strong sense and duty of\nnational honour. When, indeed, the French appear in the field, King William\nretires. \"I now see,\" he may say, \"that the powers of Europe are determined\nto abet the Belgians. The justice of such a proceeding I leave to their\nconscience and the decision of history. It is now no longer a question\nwhether I am tamely to submit to rebels and a usurper; it is no longer a\nquarrel between Holland and Belgium: it is an alliance of all Europe\nagainst Holland,--in which case I yield. I have no desire to sacrifice my\npeople.\"\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMeaning, principally, the whipping, so richly deserved, inflicted on a\nFrenchman called Bonhomme, for committing a disgusting breach of\ncommon decency in the cathedral of Coimbra, during divine service in\nPassion Week.--ED.];\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"Every thing that I have heard or read of this sovereign has contributed\nto the impression on my mind, that he is a good and a wise man, and worthy\nto be the king of a virtuous people, the purest specimen of the Gothic\nrace.\"--_Church and State_, p. 125. n.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen Leopold said that he was called to \"_reign over_ four millions of\nnoble Belgians,\" I thought the phrase would have been more germane to the\nmatter, if he had said that he was called to \"_rein in_ four million\nrestive asses.\"\n\n\n\n_August_ 20. 1831.\n\nGREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE.----HOBBISM.\n\n\nO. P. Q. in the Morning Chronicle is a clever fellow. He is for the\ngreatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number, and for the\nlongest possible time! So am I; so are you, and every one of us, I will\nventure to say, round the tea-table. First, however, what does O. P. Q.\nmean by the word _happiness_? and, secondly, how does he propose to make\nother persons agree in _his_ definition of the term? Don't you see the\nridiculous absurdity of setting up _that_ as a principle or motive of\naction, which is, in fact, a necessary and essential instinct of our very\nnature--an inborn and inextinguishable desire? How can creatures\nsusceptible of pleasure and pain do otherwise than desire happiness? But,\n_what_ happiness? That is the question. The American savage, in scalping\nhis fallen enemy, pursues _his_ happiness naturally and adequately. A\nChickasaw, or Pawnee Bentham, or O. P. Q., would necessarily hope for the\nmost frequent opportunities possible of scalping the greatest possible\nnumber of savages, for the longest possible time. There is no escaping this\nabsurdity, unless you come back to a standard of reason and duty,\nimperative upon our merely pleasurable sensations. Oh! but, says O. P. Q.,\nI am for the happiness of _others!_ Of others! Are you, indeed? Well, I\nhappen to be one of those _others_, and, so far as I can judge from what\nyou show me of your habits and views, I would rather be excused from your\nbanquet of happiness. _Your_ mode of happiness would make _me_ miserable.\nTo go about doing as much _good_ as possible to as many men as possible,\nis, indeed, an excellent object for a man to propose to himself; but then,\nin order that you may not sacrifice the real good and happiness of others\nto your particular views, which may be quite different from your\nneighbour's, you must do _that_ good to others which the reason, common to\nall, pronounces to be good for all. In this sense your fine maxim is so\nvery true as to be a mere truism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo you object, with old Hobbes, that I do good actions _for_ the pleasure\nof a good conscience; and so, after all, I am only a refined sensualist!\nHeaven bless you, and mend your logic! Don't you see that if conscience,\nwhich is in its nature a consequence, were thus anticipated and made an\nantecedent--a party instead of a judge--it would dishonour your draft upon\nit--it would not pay on demand? Don't you see that, in truth, the very fact\nof acting with this motive properly and logically destroys all claim upon\nconscience to give you any pleasure at all?\n\n\n\nAugust 22. 1831.\n\nTHE TWO MODES OF POLITICAL ACTION.\n\n\nThere are many able and patriotic members in the House of Commons--Sir\nRobert Inglis, Sir Robert Peel, and some others. But I grieve that they\nnever have the courage or the wisdom--I know not in which the failure is--\nto take their stand upon duty, and to appeal to all men as men,--to the\nGood and the True, which exist for _all_, and of which _all_ have an\napprehension. They always set to work--especially, his great eminence\nconsidered, Sir Robert Peel--by addressing themselves to individual\ninterests; the measure will be injurious to the linen-drapers, or to the\nbricklayers; or this clause will bear hard on bobbin-net or poplins, and\nso forth. Whereas their adversaries--the demagogues--always work on the\nopposite principle: they always appeal to men as men; and, as you know,\nthe most terrible convulsions in society have been wrought by such phrases\nas _Rights of Man_, _Sovereignty of the People_, _&c_., which no one\nunderstands, which apply to no one in particular, but to all in\ngeneral.[1]\n\nThe devil works precisely in the same way. He is a very clever fellow; I\nhave no acquaintance with him, but I respect his evident talents.\nConsistent truth and goodness will assuredly in the end overcome every\nthing; but inconsistent good can never be a match for consistent evil.\nAlas! I look in vain for some wise and vigorous man to sound the word Duty\nin the ears of this generation.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"It is with nations as with individuals. In tranquil moods and peaceable\ntimes we are quite _practical_; facts only, and cool common sense, are then\nin fashion. But let the winds of passion swell, and straightway men begin\nto generalize, to connect by remotest analogies, to express the most\nuniversal positions of reason in the most glowing figures of fancy; in\nshort, to feel particular truths and mere facts as poor, cold, narrow, and\nincommensurate with their feelings.\"--_Statesman's Manual_, p. 18.\n\n\"It seems a paradox only to the unthinking, and it is a fact that none but\nthe unread in history will deny, that, in periods of popular tumult and\ninnovation, the more abstract a notion is, the more readily has it been\nfound to combine, the closer has appeared its affinity, with the feelings\nof a people, and with all their immediate impulses to action. At the\ncommencement of the French Revolution, in the remotest villages every\ntongue was employed in echoing and enforcing the almost geometrical\nabstractions of the physiocratic politicians and economists. The public\nroads were crowded with armed enthusiasts, disputing on the inalienable\nsovereignty of the people, the imprescriptible laws of the pure reason, and\nthe universal constitution, which, as rising out of the nature and rights\nof man as man, all nations alike were under the obligation of adopting.\"--\n_Statesman's Manual_.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 24. 1831.\n\nTRUTHS AND MAXIMS.\n\n\nThe English public is not yet ripe to comprehend the essential difference\nbetween the reason and the understanding--between a principle and a maxim--\nan eternal truth and a mere conclusion generalized from a great number of\nfacts. A man, having seen a million moss roses all red, concludes from his\nown experience and that of others that all moss roses are red. That is a\nmaxim with him--the _greatest_ amount of his knowledge upon the subject.\nBut it is only true until some gardener has produced a white moss rose,--\nafter which the maxim is good for nothing. Again, suppose Adam watching the\nsun sinking under the western horizon for the first time; he is seized with\ngloom and terror, relieved by scarce a ray of hope that he shall ever see\nthe glorious light again. The next evening, when it declines, his hopes are\nstronger, but still mixed with fear; and even at the end of a thousand\nyears, all that a man can feel is a hope and an expectation so strong as to\npreclude anxiety. Now compare this in its highest degree with the assurance\nwhich you have that the two sides of any triangle are together greater than\nthe third. This, demonstrated of one triangle, is seen to be eternally true\nof all imaginable triangles. This is a truth perceived at once by the\nintuitive reason, independently of experience. It is and must ever be so,\nmultiply and vary the shapes and sizes of triangles as you may.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt used to be said that four and five _make_ nine. Locke says, that four\nand five _are_ nine. Now I say, that four and five _are not_ nine, but that\nthey will _make_ nine. When I see four objects which will form a square,\nand five which will form a pentagon, I see that they are two different\nthings; when combined, they will form a third different figure, which we\ncall nine. When separate they _are not_ it, but will _make_ it.\n\n\n\n\n_September_ 11. 1831.\n\nDRAYTON AND DANIEL.\n\n\nDrayton is a sweet poet, and Selden's notes to the early part of the\nPolyolbion are well worth your perusal. Daniel is a superior man; his\ndiction is pre-eminently pure,--of that quality which I believe has always\nexisted somewhere in society. It is just such English, without any\nalteration, as Wordsworth or Sir George Beaumont might have spoken or\nwritten in the present day.\n\nYet there are instances of sublimity in Drayton. When deploring the cutting\ndown of some of our old forests, he says, in language which reminds the\nreader of Lear, written subsequently, and also of several passages in Mr.\nWordsworth's poems:--\n\n   ----\"our trees so hack'd above the ground,\n  That where their lofty tops the neighbouring countries\n    crown'd,\n  Their trunks (like aged folks) now bare and naked stand,\n  _As for revenge to Heaven each held a wither'd hand._\" [1]\n\nThat is very fine.\n\n[Footnote 1: Polyol VII.\n\n\"He (Drayton) was a poet by nature, and carefully improved his talent; one\nwho sedulously laboured to deserve the approbation of such as were capable\nof appreciating and cared nothing for the censures which others might pass\nupon him.\" 'Like me that list,' he says,\n\n   ----'my honest rhymes\n  Nor care for critics, nor regard the times.'\n\nAnd though he is not a poet _virum volitarc per ora_, nor one of those\nwhose better fortune it is to live in the hearts of their devoted\nadmirers,--yet what he deemed his greatest work will be preserved by its\nsubject; some of his minor poems have merit enough in their execution to\nensure their preservation; and no one who studies poetry as an art will\nthink his time misspent in perusing the whole, if he have any real love for\nthe art he is pursuing. The youth who enters upon that pursuit without a\nfeeling of respect and gratitude for those elder poets, who by their\nlabours have prepared the way for him, is not likely to produce any thing\nhimself that will be held in remembrance by posterity.\"-_The Doctor_, &c.\nc. 36. P.I.\n\nI heartily trust that the author or authors, as the case may be, of this\nsingularly thoughtful and diverting book will in due time continue it. Let\nsome people say what they please, there has not been the fellow of it\npublished for many a long day.--ED.]\n\n\n\n\n_September_ 12. 1831.\n\nMR. COLERIDGE'S SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\nMy system, if I may venture to give it so fine a name, is the only attempt,\nI know, ever made to reduce all knowledges into harmony. It opposes no\nother system, but shows what was true in each; and how that which was true\nin the particular, in each of them became error, _because_ it was only half\nthe truth. I have endeavoured to unite the insulated fragments of truth,\nand therewith to frame a perfect mirror. I show to each system that I fully\nunderstand and rightfully appreciate what that system means; but then I\nlift up that system to a higher point of view, from which I enable it to\nsee its former position, where it was, indeed, but under another light and\nwith different relations;--so that the fragment of truth is not only\nacknowledged, but explained. Thus the old astronomers discovered and\nmaintained much that was true; but, because they were placed on a false\nground, and looked from a wrong point of view, they never did, they never\ncould, discover the truth--that is, the whole truth. As soon as they left\nthe earth, their false centre, and took their stand in the sun, immediately\nthey saw the whole system in its true light, and their former station\nremaining, but remaining as a part of the prospect. I wish, in short, to\nconnect by a moral _copula_ natural history with political history; or, in\nother words, to make history scientific, and science historical--to take\nfrom history its accidentality, and from science its fatalism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never from a boy could, under any circumstances, feel the slightest dread\nof death as such. In all my illnesses I have ever had the most intense\ndesire to be released from this life, unchecked by any but one wish,\nnamely, to be able to finish my work on Philosophy. Not that I have any\nauthor's vanity on the subject: God knows that I should be absolutely glad,\nif I could hear that the thing had already been done before me.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIllness never in the smallest degree affects my intellectual powers. I can\n_think_ with all my ordinary vigour in the midst of pain; but I am beset\nwith the most wretched and unmanning reluctance and shrinking from action.\nI could not upon such occasions take the pen in hand to write down my\nthoughts for all the wide world.\n\n\n\n_October 26._ 1831.\n\nKEENNESS AND SUBTLETY.\n\n\nFew men of genius are keen; but almost every man of genius is subtle. If\nyou ask me the difference between keenness and subtlety, I answer that it\nis the difference between a point and an edge. To split a hair is no proof\nof subtlety; for subtlety acts in distinguishing differences--in showing\nthat two things apparently one are in fact two; whereas, to split a hair is\nto cause division, and not to ascertain difference.\n\n\n\n_October_ 27. 1831.\n\nDUTIES AND NEEDS OF AN ADVOCATE.\n\n\nThere is undoubtedly a limit to the exertions of an advocate for his\nclient. He has a right, it is his bounden duty, to do every thing which his\nclient might honestly do, and to do it with all the effect which any\nexercise of skill, talent, or knowledge of his own may be able to produce.\nBut the advocate has no right, nor is it his duty, to do that for his\nclient which his client _in foro conscientiae_ has no right to do for\nhimself; as, for a gross example, to put in evidence a forged deed or will,\nknowing it to be so forged. As to mere confounding of witnesses by skilful\ncross-examination, I own I am not disposed to be very strict. The whole\nthing is perfectly well understood on all hands, and it is little more in\ngeneral than a sort of cudgel-playing between the counsel and the witness,\nin which, I speak with submission to you, I think I have seen the witness\nhave the best of it as often as his assailant. It is of the utmost\nimportance in the administration of justice that knowledge and intellectual\npower should be as far as possible equalized between the crown and the\nprisoner, or plaintiff and defendant. Hence especially arises the necessity\nfor an order of advocates,--men whose duty it ought to be to know what the\nlaw allows and disallows; but whose interests should be wholly indifferent\nas to the persons or characters of their clients. If a certain latitude in\nexamining witnesses is, as experience seems to have shown, a necessary mean\ntowards the evisceration of the truth of matters of fact, I have no doubt,\nas a moralist, in saying, that such latitude within the bounds, now\nexisting is justifiable. We must be content with a certain quantum in this\nlife, especially in matters of public cognizance; the necessities of\nsociety demand it; we must not be righteous overmuch, or wise overmuch;\nand, as an old father says, in what vein may there not be a plethora, when\nthe Scripture tells us that there may under circumstances be too much of\nvirtue and of wisdom?\n\nStill I think that, upon the whole, the advocate is placed in a position\nunfavourable to his moral being, and, indeed, to his intellect also, in its\nhigher powers. Therefore I would recommend an advocate to devote a part of\nhis leisure time to some study of the metaphysics of the mind, or\nmetaphysics of theology; something, I mean, which shall call forth all his\npowers, and centre his wishes in the investigation of truth alone, without\nreference to a side to be supported. No studies give such a power of\ndistinguishing as metaphysical, and in their natural and unperverted\ntendency they are ennobling and exalting. Some such studies are wanted to\ncounteract the operation of legal studies and practice, which sharpen,\nindeed, but, like a grinding-stone, narrow whilst they sharpen.\n\n\n\n\n_November_ 19. 1831.\n\nABOLITION OF THE FRENCH HEREDITARY PEERAGE.\n\n\nI cannot say what the French peers _will_ do; but I can tell you what they\n_ought_ to do. \"So far,\" they might say, \"as our feelings and interests, as\nindividuals, are concerned in this matter--if it really be the prevailing\nwish of our fellow-countrymen to destroy the hereditary peerage--we shall,\nwithout regret, retire into the ranks of private citizens: but we are bound\nby the provisions of the existing constitution to consider ourselves\ncollectively as essential to the well-being of France: we have been placed\nhere to defend what France, a short time ago at least, thought a vital part\nof its government; and, if we did not defend it, what answer could we make\nhereafter to France itself, if she should come to see, what we think to be\nan error, in the light in which we view it? We should be justly branded as\ntraitors and cowards, who had deserted the post which we were specially\nappointed to maintain. As a House of Peers, therefore,--as one substantive\nbranch of the legislature, we can never, in honour or in conscience,\nconsent to a measure of the impolicy and dangerous consequences of which we\nare convinced.\n\n\"If, therefore, this measure is demanded by the country, let the king and\nthe deputies form themselves into a constituent assembly; and then,\nassuming to act in the name of the total nation, let them decree the\nabolition. In that case we yield to a just, perhaps, but revolutionary,\nact, in which we do not participate, and against which we are, upon the\nsupposition, quite powerless. If the deputies, however, consider themselves\nso completely in the character of delegates as to be at present absolutely\npledged to vote without freedom of deliberation, let a concise, but\nperspicuous, summary of the ablest arguments that can be adduced on either\nside be drawn up, and printed, and circulated throughout the country; and\nthen, after two months, let the deputies demand fresh instructions upon\nthis point. One thing, as men of honour, we declare beforehand--that, come\nwhat will, none of us who are now peers will ever accept a peerage created\n_de novo_ for life.\"\n\n\n\n_November_ 20. 1831.\n\nCONDUCT OF MINISTERS ON THE REFORM BILL.--THE MULTITUDE.\n\n\nThe present ministers have, in my judgment, been guilty of two things\npreeminently wicked, _sensu politico_, in their conduct upon this Reform\nBill. First, they have endeavoured to carry a fundamental change in the\nmaterial and mode of action of the government of the country by so\nexciting the passions, and playing upon the necessary ignorance of the\nnumerical majority of the nation, that all freedom and utility of\ndiscussion, by competent heads, in the proper place, should be precluded.\nIn doing this they have used, or sanctioned the use of, arguments which\nmay he applied with equal or even greater force to the carrying of any\nmeasure whatever, no matter how atrocious in its character or destructive\nin its consequences. They have appealed directly to the argument of the\ngreater number of voices, no matter whether the utterers were drunk or\nsober, competent or not competent; and they have done the utmost in their\npower to rase out the sacred principle in politics of a representation of\ninterests, and to introduce the mad and barbarizing scheme of a delegation\nof individuals. And they have done all this without one word of\nthankfulness to God for the manifold blessings of which the constitution\nas settled at the Revolution, imperfect as it may be, has been the source\nor vehicle or condition to this great nation,--without one honest\nstatement of the manner in which the anomalies in the practice grew up, or\nany manly declaration of the inevitable necessities of government which\nthose anomalies have met. With no humility, nor fear, nor reverence, like\nHam the accursed, they have beckoned, with grinning faces, to a vulgar\nmob, to come and insult over the nakedness of a parent; when it had become\nthem, if one spark of filial patriotism had burnt within their breasts, to\nhave marched with silent steps and averted faces to lay their robes upon\nhis destitution!\n\nSecondly, they have made the _king_ the prime mover in all this political\nwickedness: they have made the _king_ tell his people that they were\ndeprived of their rights, and, by direct and necessary implication, that\nthey and their ancestors for a century past had been slaves: they have made\nthe king vilify the memory of his own brother and father. Rights! There are\nno rights whatever without corresponding duties. Look at the history of the\ngrowth of our constitution, and you will see that our ancestors never upon\nany occasion stated, as a ground for claiming any of their privileges, an\nabstract right inherent in themselves; you will nowhere in our\nparliamentary records find the miserable sophism of the Rights of Man. No!\nthey were too wise for that. They took good care to refer their claims to\ncustom and prescription, and boldly--sometimes very impudently--asserted\nthem upon traditionary and constitutional grounds. The Bill is bad enough,\nGod knows; but the arguments of its advocates, and the manner of their\nadvocacy, are a thousand times worse than the Bill itself; and you will\nlive to think so.\n\nI am far, very far, from wishing to indulge in any vulgar abuse of the\nvulgar. I believe that the feeling of the multitude will, in most cases, be\nin favour of something good; but this it is which I perceive, that they are\nalways under the domination of some one feeling or view;--whereas truth,\nand, above all, practical wisdom, must be the result of a wide\ncomprehension of the more and the less, the balance and the counter-\nbalance.\n\n\n\n_December_ 3. 1831.\n\nRELIGION.\n\n\nA religion, that is, a true religion, must consist of ideas and facts both;\nnot of ideas alone without facts, for then it would be mere Philosophy;--\nnor of facts alone without ideas, of which those facts are the symbols, or\nout of which they arise, or upon which they are grounded, for then it would\nbe mere History.\n\n\n\n_December_ 17. 1831.\n\nUNION WITH IRELAND.--IRISH CHURCH.\n\n\nI am quite sure that no dangers are to be feared by England from the\ndisannexing and independence of Ireland at all comparable with the evils\nwhich have been, and will yet be, caused to England by the Union. We have\nnever received one particle of advantage from our association with Ireland,\nwhilst we have in many most vital particulars violated the principles of\nthe British constitution solely for the purpose of conciliating the Irish\nagitators, and of endeavouring--a vain endeavour--to find room for them\nunder the same government. Mr. Pitt has received great credit for effecting\nthe Union; but I believe it will sooner or later be discovered that the\nmanner in which, and the terms upon which, he effected it, made it the most\nfatal blow that ever was levelled against the peace and prosperity of\nEngland. From it came the Catholic Bill. From the Catholic Bill has come\nthis Reform Bill! And what next?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe case of the Irish Church is certainly anomalous, and full of practical\ndifficulties. On the one hand, it is the only church which the constitution\ncan admit; on the other, such are the circumstances, it is a church that\ncannot act as a church towards five sixths of the persons nominally and\nlegally within its care.\n\n\n\n_December_ 18. 1831.\n\nA STATE.--PERSONS AND THINGS.--HISTORY.\n\nThe difference between an inorganic and an organic body lies in this:--In\nthe first--a sheaf of corn--the whole is nothing more than a collection of\nthe individual parts or phenomena. In the second--a man--the whole is the\neffect of, or results from, the parts; it--the whole--is every thing, and\nthe parts are nothing.\n\nA State is an idea intermediate between the two--the whole being a result\nfrom, and not a mere total of, the parts, and yet not so merging the\nconstituent parts in the result, but that the individual exists integrally\nwithin it. Extremes, especially in politics, meet. In Athens each\nindividual Athenian was of no value; but taken altogether, as Demus, they\nwere every thing in such a sense that no individual citizen was any thing.\nIn Turkey there is the sign of unity put for unity. The Sultan seems\nhimself the State; but it is an illusion: there is in fact in Turkey no\nState at all: the whole consists of nothing but a vast collection of\nneighbourhoods.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen the government and the aristocracy of this country had subordinated\n_persons to things_, and treated the one like the other,--the poor, with\nsome reason, and almost in self-defence, learned to set up _rights_ above\n_duties_. The code of a Christian society is, _Debeo, et tu debes_--of\nHeathens or Barbarians, _Teneo, teneto et tu, si potes_.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"And this, again, is evolved out of the yet higher idea of _person_ in\ncontradistinction from _thing_, all social law and justice being grounded\non the principle that a person can never, but by his own fault, become a\nthing, or, without grievous wrong, be treated as such; and the distinction\nconsisting in this, that a thing may be used altogether, and merely as the\n_means_ to an end; but the person must always be included in the _end_; his\ninterest must always form a part of the object,--a _mean_ to which he, by\nconsent, that is, by his own act, makes himself. We plant a tree, and we\nfell it; we breed the sheep, and we shear, or we kill it,--in both cases\nwholly as means to _our_ ends: for trees and animals are things. The\nwoodcutter and the hind are likewise employed as _means_; but on agreement,\nand that too an agreement of reciprocal advantage, which includes them as\nwell as their employer in the _end_; for they are persons. And the\ngovernment under which the contrary takes place is not worthy to be called\na state, if, as in the kingdom of Dahomey, it be unprogressive; or only by\nanticipation, where, as in Russia, it is in advance to a better and more\n_manworthy_ order of things.\"--_Church and State_, p. 10.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But\npassion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a\nlantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!\n\n\n_December_ 27. 1831.\n\nBEAUTY.--GENIUS.\n\nThe old definition of beauty in the Roman school of painting was, _il pi\u00f9\nnell' uno_--multitude in unity; and there is no doubt that such is the\nprinciple of beauty. And as one of the most characteristic and infallible\ncriteria of the different ranks of men's intellects, observe the\ninstinctive habit which all superior minds have of endeavouring to bring,\nand of never resting till they have brought, into unity the scattered facts\nwhich occur in conversation, or in the statements of men of business. To\nattempt to argue any great question upon facts only, is absurd; you cannot\nstate any fact before a mixed audience, which an opponent as clever as\nyourself cannot with ease twist towards another bearing, or at least meet\nby a contrary fact, as it is called. I wonder why facts were ever called\nstubborn things: I am sure they have been found pliable enough lately in\nthe House of Commons and elsewhere. Facts, you know, are not truths; they\nare not conclusions; they are not even premisses, but in the nature and\nparts of premisses. The truth depends on, and is only arrived at, by a\nlegitimate deduction from _all_ the facts which are truly material.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_December_ 28. 1831.\n\nCHURCH.--STATE.--DISSENTERS.\n\nEven to a church,--the only pure democracy, because in it persons are alone\nconsidered, and one person _\u00e0 priori_ is equal to another person,--even to\na church, discipline is an essential condition. But a state regards\nclasses, and classes as they represent classified property; and to\nintroduce a system of representation which must inevitably render all\ndiscipline impossible, what is it but madness-the madness of ignorant\nvanity, and reckless obstinacy?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have known, and still know, many Dissenters, who profess to have a zeal\nfor Christianity; and I dare say they have. But I have known very few\nDissenters indeed, whose hatred to the Church of England was not a much\nmore active principle of action with them than their love for Christianity.\nThe Wesleyans, in uncorrupted parts of the country, are nearly the only\nexceptions. There never was an age since the days of the apostles, in which\nthe catholic spirit of religion was so dead, and put aside for love of\nsects and parties, as at present.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_January_ 1. 1832.\n\nGRACEFULNESS OF CHILDREN.--DOGS.\n\nHow inimitably graceful children are in general before they learn to dance!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere seems a sort of sympathy between the more generous dogs and little\nchildren. I believe an instance of a little child being attacked by a large\ndog is very rare indeed.\n\n\n\n_January_ 28. 1832.\n\nIDEAL TORY AND WHIG.\n\n\nThe ideal Tory and the ideal Whig (and some such there have really been)\nagreed in the necessity and benefit of an exact balance of the three\nestates: but the Tory was more jealous of the balance being deranged by the\npeople; the Whig, of its being deranged by the Crown. But this was a habit,\na jealousy only; they both agreed in the ultimate preservation of the\nbalance; and accordingly they might each, under certain circumstances,\nwithout the slightest inconsistency, pass from one side to the other, as\nthe ultimate object required it. This the Tories did at the Revolution, but\nremained Tories as before.\n\nI have half a mind to write a critical and philosophical essay on Whiggism,\nfrom Dryden's Achitophel (Shaftesbury), the first Whig, (for, with Dr.\nJohnson's leave, the devil is no such cattle,) down to ----, who, I trust,\nin God's mercy to the interests of peace, union, and liberty in this\nnation, will be the last. In it I would take the last years of Queen Anne's\nreign as the zenith, or palmy state, of Whiggism in its divinest _avatar_\nof common sense, or of the understanding, vigorously exerted in the right\ndirection on the right and proper objects of the understanding; and would\nthen trace the rise, the occasion, the progress, and the necessary\ndegeneration of the Whig spirit of compromise, even down to the profound\nineptitudes of their party in these days. A clever fellow might make\nsomething of this hint. How Asgill would have done it!\n\n\n\n_February_ 22. 1832.\n\nTHE CHURCH.\n\n\nThe church is the last relic of our nationality. Would to God that the\nbishops and the clergy in general could once fully understand that the\nChristian church and the national church are as little to be confounded as\ndivided! I think the fate of the Reform Bill, in itself, of comparatively\nminor importance; the fate of the national church occupies my mind with\ngreater intensity.\n\n\n\n_February_ 24. 1832.\n\nMINISTERS AND THE REFORM BILL.\n\n\nI could not help smiling, in reading the report of Lord Grey's speech in\nthe House of Lords, the other night, when he asked Lord Wicklow whether he\nseriously believed that he, Lord Grey, or any of the ministers, intended to\nsubvert the institutions of the country. Had I been in Lord Wicklow's\nplace, I should have been tempted to answer this question something in the\nfollowing way:--\"Waiving the charge in an offensive sense of personal\nconsciousness against the noble earl, and all but one or two of his\ncolleagues, upon my honour, and in the presence of Almighty God, I answer,\nYes! You have destroyed the freedom of parliament; you have done your best\nto shut the door of the House of Commons to the property, the birth, the\nrank, the wisdom of the people, and have flung it open to their passions\nand their follies. You have disfranchised the gentry, and the real\npatriotism of the nation: you have agitated and exasperated the mob, and\nthrown the balance of political power into the hands of that class (the\nshopkeepers) which, in all countries and in all ages, has been, is now, and\never will be, the least patriotic and the least conservative of any. You\nare now preparing to destroy for ever the constitutional independence of\nthe House of Lords; you are for ever displacing it from its supremacy as a\nco-ordinate estate of the realm; and whether you succeed in passing your\nbill by actually swamping our votes by a batch of new peers, or by\nfrightening a sufficient number of us out of our opinions by the threat of\none,--equally you will have superseded the triple assent which the\nconstitution requires to the enactment of a valid law, and have left the\nking alone with the delegates of the populace!\"\n\n\n\n_March_ 3. 1832.\n\nDISFRANCHISEMENT.\n\n\nI am afraid the Conservative party see but one half of the truth. The mere\nextension of the franchise is not the evil; I should be glad to see it\ngreatly extended;--there is no harm in that _per se_; the mischief is that\nthe franchise is nominally extended, but to such classes, and in such a\nmanner, that a practical disfranchisement of all above, and a discontenting\nof all below, a favoured class are the unavoidable results.\n\n\n\n_March_ 17. 1832.\n\nGENIUS FEMININE.----PIRATES.\n\n\n----'s face is almost the only exception I know to the observation, that\nsomething feminine--not _effeminate_, mind--is discoverable in the\ncountenances of all men of genius. Look at that face of old Dampier, a\nrough sailor, but a man of exquisite mind. How soft is the air of his\ncountenance, how delicate the shape of his temples!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think it very absurd and misplaced to call Raleigh and Drake, and others\nof our naval heroes of Elizabeth's age, pirates. No man is a _pirate_,\nunless his contemporaries agree to call him so. Drake said,--\"The subjects\nof the king of Spain have done their best to ruin my country: _ergo_, I\nwill try to ruin the king of Spain's country.\" Would it not be silly to\ncall the Argonauts pirates in our sense of the word?\n\n\n\n_March_ 18. 1832.\n\nASTROLOGY.--ALCHEMY.\n\n\nIt is curious to mark how instinctively the reason has always pointed out\nto men the ultimate end of the various sciences, and how immediately\nafterwards they have set to work, like children, to realize that end by\ninadequate means. Now they applied to their appetites, now to their\npassions, now to their fancy, now to the understanding, and lastly, to the\nintuitive reason again. There is no doubt but that astrology of some sort\nor other would be the last achievement of astronomy: there must he chemical\nrelations between the planets; the difference of their magnitudes compared\nwith that of their distances is not explicable otherwise; but this, though,\nas it were, blindly and unconsciously seen, led immediately to fortune-\ntelling and other nonsense. So alchemy is the theoretic end of chemistry:\nthere must be a common law, upon which all can become each and each all;\nbut then the idea was turned to the coining of gold and silver.\n\n\n\n_March_ 20. 1832.\n\nREFORM BILL.--CRISIS.\n\n\nI have heard but two arguments of any weight adduced in favour of passing\nthis Reform Bill, and they are in substance these:--1. We will blow your\nbrains out if you don't pass it. 2. We will drag you through a horsepond if\nyou don't pass it; and there is a good deal of force in both.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTalk to me of your pretended crisis! Stuff! A vigorous government would in\none month change all the data for your reasoning. Would you have me believe\nthat the events of this world are fastened to a revolving cycle with God at\none end and the Devil at the other, and that the Devil is now uppermost!\nAre you a Christian, and talk about a crisis in that fatalistic sense!\n\n\n\n_March_ 31. 1832.\n\nJOHN, CHAP. III. VER. 4.--DICTATION AND INSPIRATION.--GNOSIS--NEW\nTESTAMENT CANON.\n\nI certainly understand the [Greek: ti emoi kai soi gynai] in the second\nchapter[1] of St. John's Gospel, as having a _liquid increpationis_ in it--\na mild reproof from Jesus to Mary for interfering in his ministerial acts\nby requests on her own account.\n\nI do not think that [Greek: gynai] was ever used by child to parent as a\ncommon mode of address: between husband and wife it was; but I cannot think\nthat [Greek: m_eter] and [Greek: gynai] were equivalent terms in the mouth\nof a son speaking to his mother. No part of the Christopaedia is found in\nJohn or Paul; and after the baptism there is no recognition of any maternal\nauthority in Mary. See the two passages where she endeavours to get access\nto him when he is preaching:--\"Whosoever shall do the will of God, the\nsame is my brother, and my sister, and my mother\"[2] and also the\nrecommendation of her to the care of John at the crucifixion.\n\n[Footnote 1: Verse 4.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Mark, ch. iii. ver. 35.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere may be dictation without inspiration, and inspiration without\ndictation; they have been and continue to be grievously confounded. Balaam\nand his ass were the passive organs of dictation; but no one, I suppose,\nwill venture to call either of those worthies inspired. It is my profound\nconviction that St. John and St. Paul were divinely inspired; but I totally\ndisbelieve the dictation of any one word, sentence, or argument throughout\ntheir writings. Observe, there was revelation. All religion is revealed;--\n_revealed_ religion is, in my judgment, a mere pleonasm. Revelations of\nfacts were undoubtedly made to the prophets; revelations of doctrines were\nas undoubtedly made to John and Paul;--but is it not a mere matter of our\nvery senses that John and Paul each dealt with those revelations, expounded\nthem, insisted on them, just exactly according to his own natural strength\nof intellect, habit of reasoning, moral, and even physical temperament? We\nreceive the books ascribed to John and Paul as their books on the judgment\nof men, for whom no miraculous discernment is pretended; nay, whom, in\ntheir admission and rejection of other books, we believe to have erred.\nShall we give less credence to John and Paul themselves? Surely the heart\nand soul of every Christian give him sufficient assurance that, in all\nthings that concern him as a _man_, the words that he reads are spirit and\ntruth, and could only proceed from Him who made both heart and soul.--\nUnderstand the matter so, and all difficulty vanishes: you read without\nfear, lest your faith meet with some shock from a passage here and there\nwhich you cannot reconcile with immediate dictation, by the Holy Spirit of\nGod, without an absurd violence offered to the text. You read the Bible as\nthe best of all books, but still as a book; and make use of all the means\nand appliances which learning and skill, under the blessing of God, can\nafford towards rightly apprehending the general sense of it--not solicitous\nto find out doctrine in mere epistolary familiarity, or facts in clear _ad\nhominem et pro tempore_ allusions to national traditions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTertullian, I think, says he had seen the autograph copies of some of the\napostles' writings. The truth is, the ancient Church was not guided by the\nmere fact of the genuineness of a writing in pronouncing it canonical;--\nits catholicity was the test applied to it. I have not the smallest doubt\nthat the Epistle of Barnabas is genuine; but it is not catholic; it is\nfull of the [Greek: gn_osis], though of the most simple and pleasing sort.\nI think the same of Hermas. The Church would never admit either into the\ncanon, although the Alexandrians always read the Epistle of Barnabas in\ntheir churches for three hundred years together. It was upwards of three\ncenturies before the Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted, and this on\naccount of its [Greek: gn_osis]; at length, by help of the venerable\nprefix of St. Paul's name, its admirers, happily for us, succeeded.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo little did the early bishops and preachers think their Christian faith\nwrapped up in, and solely to be learned from, the New Testament,--indeed,\ncan it be said that there was any such collection for three hundred years?\n--that I remember a letter from ----[1] to a friend of his, a bishop in the\nEast, in which he most evidently speaks of the _Christian_ Scriptures as of\nworks of which the bishop knew little or nothing.\n\n[Footnote 1: I have lost the name which Mr. Coleridge mentioned.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_April_ 4. 1832.\n\nUNITARIANISM.--MORAL PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\nI make the greatest difference between _ans_ and _isms_. I should deal\ninsincerely with you, if I said that I thought Unitarianism was\nChristianity. No; as I believe and have faith in the doctrine, it is not\nthe truth in Jesus Christ; but God forbid that I should doubt that you, and\nmany other Unitarians, as you call yourselves, are, in a practical sense,\nvery good Christians. We do not win heaven by logic.\n\nBy the by, what do you mean by exclusively assuming the title of\nUnitarians? As if Tri-Unitarians were not necessarily Unitarians, as much\n(pardon the illustration) as an apple-pie must of course be a pie! The\nschoolmen would, perhaps, have called you Unicists; but your proper name is\nPsilanthropists--believers in the mere human nature of Christ.\n\nUpon my word, if I may say so without offence, I really think many forms of\nPantheistic Atheism more agreeable to an imaginative mind than Unitarianism\nas it is professed in terms: in particular, I prefer the Spinosistic scheme\ninfinitely. The early Socinians were, to be sure, most unaccountable\nlogicians; but, when you had swallowed their bad reasoning, you came to a\ndoctrine on which the _heart_, at least, might rest for some support. They\nadored Jesus Christ. Both Laelius and Faustus Socinus laid down the\nadorability of Jesus in strong terms. I have nothing, you know, to do with\ntheir logic. But Unitarianism is, in effect, the worst of one kind of\nAtheism, joined to the worst of one kind of Calvinism, like two asses tied\ntail to tail. It has no covenant with God; and looks upon prayer as a sort\nof self-magnetizing--a getting of the body and temper into a certain\n_status_, desirable _per se_, but having no covenanted reference to the\nBeing to whom the prayer is addressed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe sum total of moral philosophy is found in this one question, Is _Good_\na superfluous word,--or mere lazy synonyme for the pleasurable, and its\ncauses;--at most, a mere modification to express degree, and comparative\nduration of pleasure?--Or the question may be more unanswerably stated\nthus, Is _good_ superfluous as a word exponent of a _kind_?--If it be, then\nmoral philosophy is but a subdivision of physics. If not, then the writings\nof Paley and all his predecessors and disciples are false and _most_\npernicious; and there is an emphatic propriety in the superlative, and in a\nsense which of itself would supply and exemplify the difference between\n_most_ and _very_.\n\n\n\n_April_ 5. 1832.\n\nMORAL LAW OF POLARITY.\n\nIt is curious to trace the operation of the moral law of polarity in the\nhistory of politics, religion, &c. When the maximum of one tendency has\nbeen attained, there is no gradual decrease, but a direct transition to its\nminimum, till the opposite tendency has attained its maximum; and then you\nsee another corresponding revulsion. With the Restoration came in all at\nonce the mechanico-corpuscular philosophy, which, with the increase of\nmanufactures, trade, and arts, made every thing in philosophy, religion,\nand poetry objective; till, at length, attachment to mere external\nworldliness and forms got to its maximum,--when out burst the French\nrevolution; and with it every thing became immediately subjective, without\nany object at all. The Rights of Man, the Sovereignty of the People, were\nsubject and object both. We are now, I think, on the turning point again.\nThis Reform seems the _ne plus ultra_ of that tendency of the public mind\nwhich substitutes its own undefined notions or passions for real objects\nand historical actualities. There is not one of the ministers--except the\none or two revolutionists among them--who has ever given us a hint,\nthroughout this long struggle, as to _what_ he really does believe will be\nthe product of the bill; what sort of House of Commons it will make for the\npurpose of governing this empire soberly and safely. No; they have\nactualized for a moment a wish, a fear, a passion, but not an idea.\n\n\n\n_April_ 1. 1832.\n\nEPIDEMIC DISEASE.--QUARANTINE.\n\n\nThere are two grand divisions under which all contagious diseases may be\nclassed:--1. Those which spring from organized living beings, and from the\nlife in them, and which enter, as it were, into the life of those in whom\nthey reproduce themselves--such as small-pox and measles. These become so\ndomesticated with the habit and system, that they are rarely received\ntwice. 2. Those which spring from dead organized, or unorganized matter,\nand which may be comprehended under the wide term _malaria_.\n\nYou may have passed a stagnant pond a hundred times without injury: you\nhappen to pass it again, in low spirits and chilled, precisely at the\nmoment of the explosion of the gas: the malaria strikes on the cutaneous or\nveno-glandular system, and drives the blood from the surface; the shivering\nfit comes on, till the musculo-arterial irritability re-acts, and then the\nhot fit succeeds; and, unless bark or arsenic--particularly bark, because\nit is a bitter as well as a tonic--be applied to strengthen the veno-\nglandular, and to moderate the musculo-arterial, system, a man may have the\nague for thirty years together.\n\nBut if, instead of being exposed to the solitary malaria of a pond, a man,\ntravelling through the Pontine Marshes, permits his animal energies to\nflag, and surrenders himself to the drowsiness which generally attacks him,\nthen blast upon blast strikes upon the cutaneous system, and passes through\nit to the musculo-arterial, and so completely overpowers the latter that it\ncannot re-act, and the man dies at once, instead of only catching an ague.\n\nThere are three factors of the operation of an epidemic or atmospheric\ndisease. The first and principal one is the predisposed state of the body;\nsecondly, the specific _virus_ in the atmosphere; and, thirdly, the\naccidental circumstances of weather, locality, food, occupation, &c.\nAgainst the second of these we are powerless: its nature, causes, and\nsympathies are too subtle for our senses to find data to go upon. Against\nthe first, medicine may act profitably. Against the third, a wise and\nsagacious medical police ought to be adopted; but, above all, let every man\nact like a Christian, in all charity, and love, and brotherly kindness, and\nsincere reliance on God's merciful providence.\n\nQuarantine cannot keep out an atmospheric disease; but it can, and does\nalways, increase the predisposing causes of its reception.\n\n\n\n_April_ 10. 1832.\n\nHARMONY.\n\n\nAll harmony is founded on a relation to rest--on relative rest. Take a\nmetallic plate, and strew sand on it; sound an harmonic chord over the\nsand, and the grains will whirl about in circles, and other geometrical\nfigures, all, as it were, depending on some point of sand relatively at\nrest. Sound a discord, and every grain will whisk about without any order\nat all, in no figures, and with no points of rest.\n\nThe clerisy of a nation, that is, its learned men, whether poets, or\nphilosophers, or scholars, are these points of relative rest. There could\nbe no order, no harmony of the whole, without them.\n\n\n\nApril 21. 1832.\n\nINTELLECTUAL REVOLUTIONS.--MODERN STYLE.\n\n\nThere have been three silent revolutions in England:--first, when the\nprofessions fell off from the church; secondly, when literature fell off\nfrom the professions; and, thirdly, when the press fell off from\nliterature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCommon phrases are, as it were, so stereotyped now by conventional use,\nthat it is really much easier to write on the ordinary politics of the day\nin the common newspaper style, than it is to make a good pair of shoes.\n\nAn apprentice has as much to learn now to be a shoemaker as ever he had;\nbut an ignorant coxcomb, with a competent want of honesty, may very\neffectively wield a pen in a newspaper office, with infinitely less pains\nand preparation than were necessary formerly.\n\n\n\n_April_ 23. 1832.\n\nGENIUS OF THE SPANISH AND ITALIANS.--VICO.--SPINOSA.\n\nThe genius of the Spanish people is exquisitely subtle, without being at\nall acute; hence there is so much humour and so little wit in their\nliterature. The genius of the Italians, on the contrary, is acute,\nprofound, and sensual, but not subtle; hence what they think to be humorous\nis merely witty.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo estimate a man like Vico, or any great man who has made discoveries and\ncommitted errors, you ought to say to yourself--\"He did so and so in the\nyear 1720, a Papist, at Naples. Now, what would he not have done if he had\nlived now, and could have availed himself of all our vast acquisitions in\nphysical science?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter the _Scienza Nuova_[1] read Spinosa, _De Monarchia ex rationis\npraescripto_[2].They differed--Vico in thinking that society tended to\nmonarchy; Spinosa in thinking it tended to democracy. Now, Spinosa's ideal\ndemocracy was realized by a contemporary--not in a nation, for that is\nimpossible, but in a sect--I mean by George Fox and his Quakers.[3]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee Michelet's Principes de la Philosophie de l'Histoire, &c. Paris, 1827.\nAn admirable analysis of Vico.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Tractatus Politici, c. vi.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Spinosa died in 1677; Fox in 1681.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_April_ 24. 1832.\n\nCOLOURS.\n\n\nColours may best be expressed by a heptad, the largest possible formula for\nthings finite, as the pentad is the smallest possible form. Indeed, the\nheptad of things finite is in all cases reducible to the pentad. The\nadorable tetractys, or tetrad, is the formula of God; which, again, is\nreducible into, and is, in reality, the same with, the Trinity. Take\ncolours thus:--\n\n\n                 Prothesis,\n                 Red, or Colour [Greek: kat exoch_en].\n                                  ^\n                                 /1\\\n                                /   \\\nMesothesis, or Indifference of /     \\\nRed and Yellow = Orange.     4/       \\5 Indigo, Violet = Indifference\n                             /Synthesis\\ of Red and Blue.\n                            /--6       \\\n        Thesis = Yellow. 2  3 Blue = Antithesis.\n                            \\Green indi-/\n                             \\componi- /\n                              \\ble    /\n                               \\     /\n                                \\   /\n           To which you must add \\7/ which is spurious or artificial\n                                  v  synthesis of Yellow and Blue.\n\n                                Green,\n                                decom-\n                                ponible\n\n\n\n\n_April_ 28. 1832.\n\nDESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.--EPIC POEM.\n\n\nThe destruction of Jerusalem is the only subject now remaining for an epic\npoem; a subject which, like Milton's Fall of Man, should interest all\nChristendom, as the Homeric War of Troy interested all Greece. There would\nbe difficulties, as there are in all subjects; and they must he mitigated\nand thrown into the shade, as Milton has done with the numerous\ndifficulties in the Paradise Lost. But there would be a greater assemblage\nof grandeur and splendour than can now be found in any other theme. As for\nthe old mythology, _incredulus odi;_ and yet there must be a mythology, or\na _quasi_-mythology, for an epic poem. Here there would be the completion\nof the prophecies--the termination of the first revealed national religion\nunder the violent assault of Paganism, itself the immediate forerunner and\ncondition of the spread of a revealed mundane religion; and then you would\nhave the character of the Roman and the Jew, and the awfulness, the\ncompleteness, the justice. I schemed it at twenty-five; but, alas!\n_venturum expectat_.\n\n\n\n_April_ 29. 1832.\n\nVOX POPULI, VOX DEI.--BLACK.\n\n\nI never said that the _vox populi_ was of course the _vox Dei_. It may be;\nbut it may be, and with equal probability, _a priori_, _vox Diaboli_. That\nthe voice of ten millions of men calling for the same thing is a spirit, I\nbelieve; but whether that be a spirit of Heaven or Hell, I can only know by\ntrying the thing called for by the prescript of reason and God's will.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBlack is the negation of colour in its greatest energy. Without lustre, it\nindicates or represents vacuity, as, for instance, in the dark mouth of a\ncavern; add lustre, and it will represent the highest degree of solidity,\nas in a polished ebony box.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn finite forms there is no real and absolute identity. God alone is\nidentity. In the former, the prothesis is a bastard prothesis, a _quasi_\nidentity only.\n\n\n\nApril 30. 1832.\n\nASGILL AND DEFOE.\n\n\nI know no genuine Saxon English superior to Asgill's. I think his and\nDefoe's irony often finer than Swift's.\n\n\n\nMay 1. 1832.\n\nHORNE TOOKE.--FOX AND PITT\n\n\nHorne Tooke's advice to the Friends of the People was profound:--\"If you\nwish to be powerful, pretend to be powerful.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFox and Pitt constantly played into each other's hands. Mr. Stuart, of the\nCourier, who was very knowing in the politics of the day, soon found out\nthe gross lies and impostures of that club as to its numbers, and told Fox\nso. Yet, instead of disclaiming them and exposing the pretence, as he ought\nto have done, Fox absolutely exaggerated their numbers and sinister\nintentions; and Pitt, who also knew the lie, took him at his word, and\nargued against him triumphantly on his own premisses.\n\nFox's Gallicism, too, was a treasury of weapons to Pitt. He could never\nconceive the French right without making the English wrong. Ah! I\nremember--\n\n--it vex'd my soul to see\nSo grand a cause, so proud a realm\nWith Goose and Goody at the helm;\nWho long ago had fall'n asunder\nBut for their rivals' baser blunder,\nThe coward whine and Frenchified\nSlaver and slang of the other side!\n\n\n\n_May_ 2. 1832.\n\nHORNER.\n\n\nI cannot say that I thought Mr. Horner a man of genius. He seemed to me to\nbe one of those men who have not very extended minds, but who know what\nthey know very well--shallow streams, and clear because they are shallow.\nThere was great goodness about him.\n\n\n\n_May_ 3. 1832.\n\nADIAPHORI.--CITIZENS AND CHRISTIANS.\n\n------ is one of those men who go far to shake my faith in a future state\nof existence; I mean, on account of the difficulty of knowing where to\nplace him. I could not bear to roast him; he is not so bad as all that\ncomes to: but then, on the other hand, to have to sit down with such a\nfellow in the very lowest pothouse of heaven is utterly inconsistent with\nthe belief of that place being a place of happiness for me.\n\n       *        *      *        *       *\n\nIn two points of view I reverence man; first, as a citizen, a part of, or\nin order to, a nation; and, secondly, as a Christian. If men are neither\nthe one nor the other, but a mere aggregation of individual bipeds, who\nacknowledge no national unity, nor believe with me in Christ, I have no\nmore personal sympathy with them than with the dust beneath my feet.\n\n\n\nMay 21. 1832.\n\nPROFESSOR PARK.--ENGLISH CONSTITUTION--DEMOCRACY.--MILTON AND SIDNEY.\n\n\nProfessor Park talks[1] about its being very _doubtful_ whether the\nconstitution described by Blackstone ever in fact existed. In the same\nmanner, I suppose, it is doubtful whether the moon is made of green cheese,\nor whether the souls of Welchmen do, in point of fact, go to heaven on the\nbacks of mites. Blackstone's was the age of shallow law. Monarchy,\naristocracy, and democracy, as _such_, exclude each the other: but if the\nelements are to interpenetrate, how absurd to call a lump of sugar\nhydrogen, oxygen, and carbon! nay, to take three lumps, and call the first\nhydrogen; the second, oxygen; and the third, carbon! Don't you see that\neach is in all, and all in each?\n\nThe democracy of England, before the Reform Bill, was, where it ought to\nbe, in the corporations, the vestries, the joint-stock companies, &c. The\npower, in a democracy, is in focal points, without a centre; and in\nproportion as such democratical power is strong, the strength of the\ncentral government ought to be intense--otherwise the nation will fall to\npieces.\n\nWe have just now incalculably increased the democratical action of the\npeople, and, at the same time, weakened the executive power of the\ngovernment.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn his \"Dogmas of the Constitution, four Lectures on the Theory\nand Practice of the Constitution, delivered at the King's College, London,\"\n1832. Lecture I. There was a stiffness, and an occasional uncouthness\nin Professor Park's style; but his two works, the one just mentioned,\nand his \"Contre-Projet to the Humphreysian Code,\" are full of original\nviews and vigorous reasonings. To those who wished to see the profession\nof the law assume a more scientific character than for the most part it has\nhitherto done in England, the early death of John James Park was a very\ngreat loss.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt was the error of Milton, Sidney, and others of that age, to think it\npossible to construct a purely aristocratical government, defecated of all\npassion, and ignorance, and sordid motive. The truth is, such a government\nwould be weak from its utter want of sympathy with the people to be\ngoverned by it.\n\n\n\n_May_ 25. 1832.\n\nDE VI MINIMORUM.--HAHNEMANN.--LUTHER.\n\n\nMercury strongly illustrates the theory _de vi minimorum_. Divide five\ngrains into fifty doses, and they may poison you irretrievably. I don't\nbelieve in all that Hahnemann says; but he is a fine fellow, and, like most\nGermans, is not altogether wrong, and like them also, is never altogether\nright.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSix volumes of translated selections from Luther's works, two being from\nhis Letters, would be a delightful work. The translator should be a man\ndeeply imbued with his Bible, with the English writers from Henry the\nSeventh to Edward the Sixth, the Scotch divines of the 16th century, and\nwith the old racy German.[1]\n\nHugo de Saint Victor, Luther's favourite divine, was a wonderful man, who,\nin the 12th century, the jubilant age of papal dominion, nursed the lamp of\nPlatonic mysticism in the spirit of the most refined Christianity.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge was fond of pressing this proposed publication:--\"I can\nscarcely conceive,\" he says in the Friend, \"a more delightful volume than\nmight be made from Luther's letters, especially those that were written\nfrom the Warteburg, if they were translated in the simple, sinewy,\nidiomatic, _hearty_ mother tongue of the original. A difficult task I\nadmit, and scarcely possible for any man, however great his talents in\nother respects, whose favourite reading has not lain among the English\nwriters from Edward the Sixth to Charles the First.\" Vol. i. p. 235. n.--\nED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nThis celebrated man was a Fleming, and a member of the Augustinian society\nof St. Victor. He died at Paris in 1142, aged forty-four. His age\nconsidered, it is sufficient praise for him that Protestants and Romanists\nboth claim him for their own on the subject of transubstantiation.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_June_ 9. 1832.\n\nSYMPATHY OF OLD GREEK AND LATIN WITH ENGLISH.--ROMAN MIND.--WAR.\n\n\nIf you take Sophocles, Catullus, Lucretius, the better parts of Cicero, and\nso on, you may, just with two or three exceptions arising out of the\ndifferent idioms as to cases, translate page after page into good mother\nEnglish, word by word, without altering the order; but you cannot do so\nwith Virgil or Tibullus: if you attempt it, you will make nonsense.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is a remarkable power of the picturesque in the fragments we have of\nEnnius, Actius, and other very old Roman writers. This vivid manner was\nlost in the Augustan age.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMuch as the Romans owed to Greece in the beginning, whilst their mind was,\nas it were, tuning itself to an after-effort of its own music, it suffered\nmore in proportion by the influence of Greek literature subsequently, when\nit was already mature and ought to have worked for itself. It then became a\nsuperfetation upon, and not an ingredient in, the national character. With\nthe exception of the stern pragmatic historian and the moral satirist, it\nleft nothing original to the Latin Muse.[1]\n\nA nation, to be great, ought to be compressed in its increment by nations\nmore civilized than itself--as Greece by Persia; and Rome by Etruria, the\nItalian states, and Carthage. I remember Commodore Decatur saying to me at\nMalta, that he deplored the occupation of Louisiana by the United States,\nand wished that province had been possessed by England. He thought that if\nthe United States got hold of Canada by conquest or cession, the last\nchance of his country becoming a great compact nation would be lost.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nPerhaps it left letter-writing also. Even if the Platonic epistles are\ntaken as genuine, which Mr. Coleridge, to my surprise, was inclined to\nbelieve, they can hardly interfere, I think, with the uniqueness of the\ntruly incomparable collections from the correspondence of Cicero and\nPliny.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWar in republican Rome was the offspring of its intense aristocracy of\nspirit, and stood to the state in lieu of trade. As long as there was any\nthing _ab extra_ to conquer, the state advanced: when nothing remained but\nwhat was Roman, then, as a matter of course, civil war began.\n\n\n\n_June_ 10. 1832.\n\nCHARM FOR CRAMP.\n\n\nWhen I was a little hoy at the Blue-coat School, there was a charm for\none's foot when asleep; and I believe it had been in the school since its\nfoundation, in the time of Edward the Sixth. The march of intellect has\nprobably now exploded it. It ran thus:--\n\nFoot! foot! foot! is fast asleep!\nThumb! thumb! thumb! in spittle we steep:\nCrosses three we make to ease us,\nTwo for the thieves, and one for Christ Jesus!\n\nAnd the same charm served for a cramp in the leg, with the following\nsubstitution:--\n\nThe devil is tying a knot in my leg!\nMark, Luke, and John, unloose it I beg!--\nCrosses three, &c.\n\nAnd really upon getting out of bed, where the cramp most frequently\noccurred, pressing the sole of the foot on the cold floor, and then\nrepeating this charm with the acts configurative thereupon prescribed, I\ncan safely affirm that I do not remember an instance in which the cramp did\nnot go away in a few seconds.\n\nI should not wonder if it were equally good for a stitch in the side; but I\ncannot say I ever tried it for _that_.\n\n\n\nJuly 7. 1832.\n\nGREEK.--DUAL, NEUTER PLURAL, AND VERB SINGULAR.--THETA.\n\n\nIt is hardly possible to conceive a language more perfect than the Greek.\nIf you compare it with the modern European tongues, in the points of the\nposition and relative bearing of the vowels and consonants on each other,\nand of the variety of terminations, it is incalculably before all in the\nformer particulars, and only equalled in the last by German. But it is in\nvariety of termination alone that the German surpasses the other modern\nlanguages as to sound; for, as to position, Nature seems to have dropped an\nacid into the language, when a-forming, which curdled the vowels, and made\nall the consonants flow together. The Spanish is excellent for variety of\ntermination; the Italian, in this particular, the most deficient. Italian\nprose is excessively monotonous.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is very natural to have a dual, duality being a conception quite\ndistinct from plurality. Most very primitive languages have a dual, as the\nGreek, Welch, and the native Chilese, as you will see in the Abb\u00e9 Raynal.\n\nThe neuter plural governing, as they call it, a verb singular is one of the\nmany instances in Greek of the inward and metaphysic grammar resisting\nsuccessfully the tyranny of formal grammar. In truth, there may be\n_Multeity_ in things; but there can only be _Plurality_ in persons.\n\nObserve also that, in fact, a neuter noun in Greek has no real nominative\ncase, though it has a formal one, that is to say, the same word with the\naccusative. The reason is--a _thing_ has no subjectivity, or nominative\ncase: it exists only as an object in the accusative or oblique case.\n\nIt is extraordinary that the Germans should not have retained or assumed\nthe two beautifully discriminated sounds of the soft and hard _theta_; as\nin _thy thoughts_--_the thin ether that_, &c. How particularly fine the\nhard _theta_ is in an English termination, as in that grand word--Death--\nfor which the Germans gutturize a sound that puts you in mind of nothing\nbut a loathsome toad.\n\n\n\n_July_ 8. 1832.\n\nTALENTED.\n\n\nI regret to see that vile and barbarous vocable _talented_, stealing out of\nthe newspapers into the leading reviews and most respectable publications\nof the day. Why not _shillinged, farthinged, tenpenced,_ &c.? The formation\nof a participle passive from a noun is a licence that nothing but a very\npeculiar felicity can excuse. If mere convenience is to justify such\nattempts upon the idiom, you cannot stop till the language becomes, in the\nproper sense of the word, corrupt. Most of these pieces of slang come from\nAmerica.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee \"_eventuate_,\" in Mr. Washington Irving's \"Tour On the Prairies,\"\n_passim_.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNever take an iambus as a Christian name. A trochee, or tribrach, will do\nvery well. Edith and Rotha are my favourite names for women.\n\n\n\n_July_ 9. 1832.\n\nHOMER.--VALCKNAER.\n\nI have the firmest conviction that _Homer_ is a mere traditional synonyme\nwith, or figure for, the Iliad. You cannot conceivefor a moment any thing\nabout the poet, as you call him, apart from that poem.  Difference in men\nthere was in a degree, but not in kind; one man was, perhaps, a better poet\nthan another; but he was a poet upon the same ground and with the same\nfeelings as the rest.\n\nThe want of adverbs in the Iliad is very characteristic. With more adverbs\nthere would have been some subjectivity, or subjectivity would have made\nthem.\n\nThe Greeks were then just on the verge of the bursting forth of\nindividuality.\n\nValckenaer's treatise[1] on the interpolation of the Classics by the later\nJews and early Christians is well worth your perusal as a scholar and\ncritic.\n\n[Footnote 1:  _Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo_.--ED.]\n\n\n\nJuly 13. 1832.\n\nPRINCIPLES AND FACTS.--SCHMIDT.\n\n\nI have read all the famous histories, and, I believe, some history of every\ncountry and nation that is, or ever existed; but I never did so for the\nstory itself as a story. The only thing interesting to me was the\nprinciples to be evolved from, and illustrated by, the facts.[1] After I\nhad gotten my principles, I pretty generally left the facts to take care of\nthemselves. I never could remember any passages in books, or the\nparticulars of events, except in the gross. I can refer to them. To be\nsure, I must be a different sort of man from Herder, who once was seriously\nannoyed with himself, because, in recounting the pedigree of some German\nroyal or electoral family, he missed some one of those worthies and could\nnot recall the name.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"The true origin of human events is so little susceptible of that kind of\nevidence which can _compel_ our belief; so many are the disturbing forces\nwhich, in every cycle or ellipse of changes, modify the motion given by the\nfirst projection; and every age has, or imagines it has, its own\ncircumstances, which render past experience no longer applicable to the\npresent case; that there will never be wanting answers, and explanations,\nand specious flatteries of hope, to persuade and perplex its government,\nthat the history of the past is inapplicable to _their_ case. And no\nwonder, if we read history for the facts, instead of reading it for the\nsake of the general principles, which are to the facts as the root and sap\nof a tree to its leaves: and no wonder if history so read should find a\ndangerous rival in novels; nay, if the latter should be preferred to the\nformer, on the score even of probability. I well remember that, when the\nexamples of former Jacobins, as Julius Caesar, Cromwell, and the like, were\nadduced in France and England, at the commencement of the French consulate,\nit was ridiculed as pedantry and pedants' ignorance, to fear a repetition\nof usurpation and military despotism at the close of the _enlightened\neighteenth century_! Even so, in the very dawn of the late tempestuous day,\nwhen the revolutions of Corcyra, the proscriptions of the reformers Marius,\nC\u00e6sar, &c., and the direful effects of the levelling tenets in the\npeasants' war in Germany (differenced from the tenets of the first French\nconstitution only by the mode of wording them, the figures of speech being\nborrowed in the one instance from theology, and in the other from modern\nmetaphysics), were urged on the convention and its vindicators; the magi of\nthe day, the true citizens of the world, the _plusquam perfecti_ of\npatriotism, gave us set proofs that similar results were impossible, and\nthat it was an insult to so philosophical an age, to so enlightened a\nnation, to dare direct the public eye towards them as to lights of\nwarning.\"--_Statesman's Manual_, p. 14.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSchmidt[1] was a Romanist; but I have generally found him candid, as indeed\nalmost all the Austrians are. They are what is called _good Catholics_;\nbut, like our Charles the Second, they never let their religious bigotry\ninterfere with their political well-doing. Kaiser is a most pious son of\nthe church, yet he always keeps his papa in good order.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMichael Ignatius Schmidt, the author of the History of the Germans.  He\ndied in the latter end of the last century.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 20. 1832.\n\nPURITANS AND JACOBINS.\n\n\nIt was God's mercy to our age that our Jacobins were infidels and a scandal\nto all sober Christians. Had they been like the old Puritans, they would\nhave trodden church and king to the dust--at least for a time.\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor one mercy I owe thanks beyond all utterance,--that, with all my gastric\nand bowel distempers, my head hath ever been like the head of a mountain in\nblue air and sunshine.\n\n\n\n_July_ 21. 1832.\n\nWORDSWORTH.\n\n\nI have often wished that the first two books of the Excursion had been\npublished separately, under the name of \"The Deserted Cottage.\" They would\nhave formed, what indeed they are, one of the most beautiful poems in the\nlanguage.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCan dialogues in verse be defended? I cannot but think that a great\nphilosophical poet ought always to teach the reader himself as from\nhimself. A poem does not admit argumentation, though it does admit\ndevelopment of thought. In prose there may be a difference; though I must\nconfess that, even in Plato and Cicero, I am always vexed that the authors\ndo not say what they have to say at once in their own persons. The\nintroductions and little urbanities are, to be sure, very delightful in\ntheir way; I would not lose them; but I have no admiration for the practice\nof ventriloquizing through another man's mouth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot help regretting that Wordsworth did not first publish his thirteen\nbooks on the growth of an individual mind--superior, as I used to think,\nupon the whole, to the Excursion. You may judge how I felt about them by my\nown poem upon the occasion.[1] Then the plan laid out, and, I believe,\npartly suggested by me, was, that Wordsworth should assume the station of a\nman in mental repose, one whose principles were made up, and so prepared to\ndeliver upon authority a system of philosophy. He was to treat man as man,\n--a subject of eye, ear, touch, and taste, in contact with external nature,\nand informing the senses from the mind, and not compounding a mind out of\nthe senses; then he was to describe the pastoral and other states of\nsociety, assuming something of the Juvenalian spirit as he approached the\nhigh civilization of cities and towns, and opening a melancholy picture of\nthe present state of degeneracy and vice; thence he was to infer and reveal\nthe proof of, and necessity for, the whole state of man and society being\nsubject to, and illustrative of, a redemptive process in operation, showing\nhow this idea reconciled all the anomalies, and promised future glory and\nrestoration. Something of this sort was, I think, agreed on. It is, in\nsubstance, what I have been all my life doing in my system of philosophy.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nPoetical Works, vol. i. p. 206. It is not too much to say of this beautiful\npoem, and yet it is difficult to say more, that it is at once worthy of the\npoet, his subject, and his object:--\n\n  \"An Orphic song indeed,\nA song divine of high and passionate thoughts,\nTo their own music chanted.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think Wordsworth possessed more of the genius of a great philosophic poet\nthan any man I ever knew, or, as I believe, has existed in England since\nMilton; but it seems to me that he ought never to have abandoned the\ncontemplative position, which is peculiarly--perhaps I might say\nexclusively--fitted for him. His proper title is _Spectator ab extra_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_July_ 23. 1832.\n\nFRENCH REVOLUTION.\n\nNo man was more enthusiastic than I was for France and the Revolution: it\nhad all my wishes, none of my expectations. Before 1793, I clearly saw and\noften enough stated in public, the horrid delusion, the vile mockery, of\nthe whole affair.[1]\n\nWhen some one said in my brother James's presence[2] that I was a Jacobin,\nhe very well observed,--\"No! Samuel is no Jacobin; he is a hot-headed\nMoravian!\" Indeed, I was in the extreme opposite pole.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\n  \"Forgive me, Freedom! O forgive those dreams!\n  I hear thy voice, I hear thy loud lament,\n  From bleak Helvetia's icy cavern sent--\n  I hear thy groans upon her blood-stain'd streams!\n  Heroes, that for your peaceful country perish'd,\n  And ye that, fleeing, spot your mountain snows\n  With bleeding wounds; forgive me, that I cherish'd\n  One thought that ever blest your cruel foes!\n  To scatter rage and traitorous guilt,\n  Where Peace her jealous home had built;\n  A patriot race to disinherit\n  Of all that made her stormy wilds so dear:\n  And with inexpiable spirit\n  To taint the bloodless freedom of the mountaineer--\n  O France, that mockest Heaven, adult'rous, blind,\n  And patriot only in pernicious toils,\n  Are these thy boasts, champion of human-kind?\n  To mix with kings in the low lust of sway,\n  Yell in the hunt and share the murderous prey--\n  To insult the shrine of Liberty with spoils\n  From freemen torn--to tempt and to betray?--\n\n  The Sensual and the Dark rebel in vain,\n  Slaves by their own compulsion! In mad game\n  They burst their manacles, and wear the name\n  Of freedom, graven on a heavier chain!\n  O Liberty! with profitless endeavour\n  Have I pursued thee many a weary hour;\n  But thou nor swell'st the victor's train, nor ever\n  Didst breathe thy soul in forms of human power.\n  Alike from all, howe'er they praise thee,\n  (Nor prayer, nor boastful name delays thee,)\n  Alike from priestcraft's harpy minions,\n  And factious blasphemy's obscener slaves,\n  _Thou speedest on thy subtle pinions,\n  The guide of homeless winds, and playmate of the waves!_\"\n\nFrance, an Ode. Poetical Works, vol. i. p. 130.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nA soldier of the old cavalier stamp, to whom the King was the symbol of\nthe majesty, as the Church was of the life, of the nation, and who would\nmost assuredly have taken arms for one or the other against all the Houses\nof Commons or committees of public safety in the world.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_July_ 24. 1832.\n\nINFANT SCHOOLS.\n\n\nI have no faith in act of parliament reform. All the great--the permanently\ngreat--things that have been achieved in the world have been so achieved by\nindividuals, working from the instinct of genius or of goodness. The rage\nnow-a-days is all the other way: the individual is supposed capable of\nnothing; there must be organization, classification, machinery, &c., as if\nthe capital of national morality could be increased by making a joint stock\nof it. Hence you see these infant schools so patronized by the bishops and\nothers, who think them a grand invention. Is it found that an infant-school\nchild, who has been bawling all day a column of the multiplication-table,\nor a verse from the Bible, grows up a more dutiful son or daughter to its\nparents? Are domestic charities on the increase amongst families under this\nsystem? In a great town, in our present state of society, perhaps such\nschools may be a justifiable expedient--a choice of the lesser evil; but as\nfor driving these establishments into the country villages, and breaking up\nthe cottage home education, I think it one of the most miserable mistakes\nwhich the well-intentioned people of the day have yet made; and they have\nmade, and are making, a good many, God knows.\n\n\n\n_July_ 25. 1832.\n\nMR. COLERIDGE'S PHILOSOPHY.--SUBLIMITY.--SOLOMON.--MADNESS.--C. LAMB--\nSFORZA's DECISION.\n\n\nThe pith of my system is to make the senses out of the mind--not the mind\nout of the senses, as Locke did.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCould you ever discover any thing sublime, in our sense of the term, in the\nclassic Greek literature? never could. Sublimity is Hebrew by birth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI should conjecture that the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were written, or,\nperhaps, rather collected, about the time of Nehemiah. The language is\nHebrew with Chaldaic endings. It is totally unlike the language of Moses on\nthe one hand, and of Isaiah on the other.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSolomon introduced the commercial spirit into his kingdom. I cannot think\nhis idolatry could have been much more, in regard to himself, than a state\nprotection or toleration of the foreign worship.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen a man mistakes his thoughts for persons and things, he is mad. A\nmadman is properly so defined.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCharles Lamb translated my motto _Sermoni propriora_ by--_properer for a\nsermon_!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI was much amused some time ago by reading the pithy decision of one of the\nSforzas of Milan, upon occasion of a dispute for precedence between the\nlawyers and physicians of his capital;--_Paecedant fures--sequantur\ncarnifices_. I hardly remember a neater thing.\n\n\n\n_July_ 28. 1832.\n\nFAITH AND BELIEF.\n\n\nThe sublime and abstruse doctrines of Christian belief belong to the\nchurch; but the faith of the individual, centered in his heart, is or may\nbe collateral to them.[1]\n\nFaith is subjective. I throw myself in adoration before God; acknowledge\nmyself his creature,--simple, weak, lost; and pray for help and pardon\nthrough Jesus Christ: but when I rise from my knees, I discuss the doctrine\nof the Trinity as I would a problem in geometry; in the same temper of\nmind, I mean, not by the same process of reasoning, of course.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge used very frequently to insist upon the distinction between\nbelief and faith. He once told me, with very great earnestness, that if he\nwere that moment convinced--a conviction, the possibility of which,\nindeed, he could not realize to himself--that the New Testament was a\nforgery from beginning to end--wide as the desolation in his moral\nfeelings would be, he should not abate one jot of his faith in God's power\nand mercy through some manifestation of his being towards man, either in\ntime past or future, or in the hidden depths where time and space are not.\nThis was, I believe, no more than a vivid expression of what he always\nmaintained, that no man had attained to a full faith who did not\n_recognize_ in the Scriptures a correspondency to his own nature, or see\nthat his own powers of reason, will, and understanding were preconfigured\nto the reception of the Christian doctrines and promises.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 4. 1832.\n\nDOBRIZHOFFER.[1]\n\n\nI hardly know any thing more amusing than the honest German Jesuitry of\nDobrizhoffer. His chapter on the dialects is most valuable. He is surprised\nthat there is no form for the infinitive, but that they say,--I wish, (go,\nor eat, or drink, &c.) interposing a letter by way of copula,--forgetting\nhis own German and the English, which are, in truth, the same. The\nconfident belief entertained by the Abipones of immortality, in connection\nwith the utter absence in their minds of the idea of a God, is very\nremarkable. If Warburton were right, which he is not, the Mosaic scheme\nwould be the exact converse. My dear daughter's translation of this book[2]\nis, in my judgment, unsurpassed for pure mother English by any thing I have\nread for a long time.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\n\"He was a man of rarest qualities,\n  Who to this barbarous region had confined\n  A spirit with the learned and the wise\n  Worthy to take its place, and from mankind\n  Receive their homage, to the immortal mind\n  Paid in its just inheritance of fame.\n  But he to humbler thoughts his heart inclined:\n  From Gratz amid the Styrian hills he came,\nAnd Dobrizhofter was the good man's honour'd name.\n\n\"It was his evil fortune to behold\n  The labours of his painful life destroyed;\n  His flock which he had brought within the fold\n  Dispers'd; the work of ages render'd void,\n  And all of good that Paraguay enjoy'd\n  By blind and suicidal power o'erthrown.\n  So he the years of his old age employ'd,\n  A faithful chronicler, in handing down\nNames which he lov'd, and things well worthy to be known.\n\n\"And thus when exiled from the dear-loved scene,\n   In proud Vienna he beguiled the pain\n  Of sad remembrance: and the empress-queen,\n  That great Teresa, she did not disdain\n  In gracious mood sometimes to entertain\n  Discourse with him both pleasurable and sage;\n  And sure a willing ear she well might deign\n  To one whose tales may equally engage\nThe wondering mind of youth, the thoughtful heart of age.\n\n\"But of his native speech, because well-nigh\n  Disuse in him forgetfulness had wrought,\n  In Latin he composed his history;\n  A garrulous, but a lively tale, and fraught\n  With matter of delight, and food for thought.\n  And if he could in Merlin's glass have seen\n  By whom his tomes to speak our tongue were taught,\n  The old man would have felt as pleased, I ween,\nAs when he won the ear of that great empress-queen.\n\n\"Little he deem'd, when with his Indian band\n  He through the wilds set forth upon his way,\n  A poet then unborn, and in a land\n  Which had proscribed his order, should one day\n  Take up from thence his moralizing lay,\n  And, shape a song that, with no fiction drest,\n  Should to his worth its grateful tribute pay,\n  And sinking deep in many an English breast,\nFoster that faith divine that keeps the heart at rest.\"\n\n_Southey's Tale of Paraguay_, canto iii. st. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"An Account of the Abipones, an Equestrian People of Paraguay, From the\nLatin of Martin Dobrizhoffer, eighteen Years a Missionary in that\nCountry.\"--Vol. ii. p. 176.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 6. 1832.\n\nSCOTCH AND ENGLISH.--CRITERION OF GENIUS.--DRYDEN AND POPE.\n\nI have generally found a Scotchman with a little literature very\ndisagreeable. He is a superficial German or a dull Frenchman. The Scotch\nwill attribute merit to people of any nation rather than the English; the\nEnglish have a morbid habit of petting and praising foreigners of any sort,\nto the unjust disparagement of their own worthies.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou will find this a good gage or criterion of genius,--whether it\nprogresses and evolves, or only spins upon itself. Take Dryden's Achitophel\nand Zimri,--Shaftesbury and Buckingham; every line adds to or modifies the\ncharacter, which is, as it were, a-building up to the very last verse;\nwhereas, in Pope's Timon, &c. the first two or three couplets contain all\nthe pith of the character, and the twenty or thirty lines that follow are\nso much evidence or proof of overt acts of jealousy, or pride, or whatever\nit may be that is satirized. In like manner compare Charles Lamb's\nexquisite criticisms on Shakspeare with Hazlitt's round and round\nimitations of them.\n\n\n\n_August_ 7. 1832.\n\nMILTON'S DISREGARD OF PAINTING.\n\n\nIt is very remarkable that in no part of his writings does Milton take any\nnotice of the great painters of Italy, nor, indeed, of painting as an art;\nwhilst every other page breathes his love and taste for music. Yet it is\ncurious that, in one passage in the Paradise Lost, Milton has certainly\ncopied the _fresco_ of the Creation in the Sistine Chapel at Rome. I mean\nthose lines,--\n\n               ----\"now half appear'd\n The tawny lion, pawing to get free\n His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,\n And rampant shakes his brinded mane;--\"&c.[1]\n\nan image which the necessities of the painter justified, but which was\nwholly unworthy, in my judgment, of the enlarged powers of the poet. Adam\nbending over the sleeping Eve in the Paradise Lost[2] and Dalilah\napproaching Samson, in the Agonistes[3] are the only two proper pictures I\nremember in Milton.\n\n[Footnote 1: Par. Lost, book vii. ver. 463.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\n      ----\"so much the more\n  His wonder was to find unwaken'd Eve\n  With tresses discomposed, and glowing cheek,\n  As through unquiet rest: he on his side\n  Leaning, half raised, with looks of cordial love\n  Hung over her enamour'd, and beheld\n  Beauty, which, whether waking or asleep,\n  Shot forth peculiar graces; then, with voice\n  Mild, as when Zephyrus on Flora breathes,\n  Her hand soft touching, whisper'd thus: Awake,\n  My fairest,\" &c.\n\nBook v. ver. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\n\n  \"But who is this, what thing of sea or land?\n   Female of sex it seems,\n   That so bedeck'd, ornate, and gay,\n   Comes this way sailing\n   Like a stately ship\n   Of Tarsus, bound for the isles\n   Of Javan or Gadire,\n   With all her bravery on, and tackle trim,\n   Sails fill'd, and streamers waving,\n   Courted by all the winds that hold them play;\n   An amber-scent of odorous perfume\n   Her harbinger, a damsel train behind!\"]\n\n\n\n\nAugust 9. 1832.\n\nBAPTISMAL SERVICE.--JEWS' DIVISION OF THE SCRIPTURE.--SANSKRIT.\n\nI think the baptismal service almost perfect. What seems erroneous\nassumption in it to me, is harmless. None of the services of the church\naffect me so much as this. I never could attend a christening without tears\nbursting forth at the sight of the helpless innocent in a pious clergyman's\narms.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Jews recognized three degrees of sanctity in their Scriptures:--first,\nthe writings of Moses, who had the [Greek: autopsia]; secondly, the\nProphets; and, thirdly, the Good Books. Philo, amusingly enough, places his\nworks somewhere between the second and third degrees.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe claims of the Sanskrit for priority to the Hebrew as a language are\nridiculous.\n\n\n\nAugust 11. 1832.\n\nHESIOD.--VIRGIL.--GENIUS METAPHYSICAL.--DON QUIXOTE.\n\n\nI like reading Hesiod, meaning the Works and Days. If every verse is not\npoetry, it is, at least, good sense, which is a great deal to say.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is nothing real in the Georgies, except, to be sure, the verse.[1]\nMere didactics of practice, unless seasoned with the personal interests of\nthe time or author, are inexpressibly dull to me. Such didactic poetry as\nthat of the Works and Days followed naturally upon legislation and the\nfirst ordering of municipalities.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI used to fancy Mr. Coleridge _paulo iniquior Virgilio_, and told him so;\nto which he replied, that, like all Eton men, I swore _per Maronem_. This\nwas far enough from being the case; but I acknowledge that Mr. C.'s\napparent indifference to the tenderness and dignity of Virgil excited my\nsurprise.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAll genius is metaphysical; because the ultimate end of genius is ideal,\nhowever it may be actualized by incidental and accidental circumstances.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDon Quixote is not a man out of his senses, but a man in whom the\nimagination and the pure reason are so powerful as to make him disregard\nthe evidence of sense when it opposed their conclusions. Sancho is the\ncommon sense of the social man-animal, unenlightened and unsanctified by\nthe reason. You see how he reverences his master at the very time he is\ncheating him.\n\n\n\n_August_ 14. 1832.\n\nSTEINMETZ.--KEATS.\n\n\nPoor dear Steinmetz is gone,--his state of sure blessedness accelerated;\nor, it may be, he is buried in Christ, and there in that mysterious depth\ngrows on to the spirit of a just man made perfect! Could I for a moment\ndoubt this, the grass would become black beneath my feet, and this earthly\nframe a charnel-house. I never knew any man so illustrate the difference\nbetween the feminine and the effeminate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA loose, slack, not well-dressed youth met Mr. ---- and myself in a lane\nnear Highgate.---- knew him, and spoke. It was Keats. He was introduced to\nme, and staid a minute or so. After he had left us a little way, he came\nback and said: \"Let me carry away the memory, Coleridge, of having pressed\nyour hand!\"--\"There is death in that hand,\" I said to ----, when Keats was\ngone; yet this was, I believe, before the consumption showed itself\ndistinctly.\n\n\n\n_August_ 16. 1832.\n\nCHRIST'S HOSPITAL.--BOWYER.\n\n\nThe discipline at Christ's Hospital in my time was ultra-Spartan;--all\ndomestic ties were to be put aside. \"Boy!\" I remember Bowyer saying to me\nonce when I was crying the first day of my return after the holidays, \"Boy!\nthe school is your father! Boy! the school is your mother! Boy! the school\nis your brother! the school is your sister! the school is your first\ncousin, and your second cousin, and all the rest of your relations! Let's\nhave no more crying!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo tongue can express good Mrs. Bowyer. Val. Le Grice and I were once going\nto be flogged for some domestic misdeed, and Bowyer was thundering away at\nus by way of prologue, when Mrs. B. looked in, and said, \"Flog them\nsoundly, sir, I beg!\" This saved us. Bowyer was so nettled at the\ninterruption that he growled out, \"Away, woman! away!\" and we were let off.\n\n\n\n_August_ 28. 1832.\n\nST. PAUL'S MELITA.\n\n\nThe belief that Malta is the island on which St. Paul was wrecked is so\nrooted in the common Maltese, and is cherished with such a superstitious\nnationality, that the Government would run the chance of exciting a tumult,\nif it, or its representatives, unwarily ridiculed it. The supposition\nitself is quite absurd. Not to argue the matter at length, consider these\nfew conclusive facts:--The narrative speaks of the \"barbarous people,\" and\n\"barbarians,\"[1] of the island. Now, our Malta was at that time fully\npeopled and highly civilized, as we may surely infer from Cicero and other\nwriters.[2] A viper comes out from the sticks upon the fire being lighted:\nthe men are not surprised at the appearance of the snake, but imagine first\na murderer, and then a god from the harmless attack. Now in our Malta there\nare, I may say, no snakes at all; which, to be sure, the Maltese attribute\nto St. Paul's having cursed them away. Melita in the Adriatic was a\nperfectly barbarous island as to its native population, and was, and is\nnow, infested with serpents. Besides the context shows that the scene is in\nthe Adriatic.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nActs xxviii. 2. and 4. Mr. C. seemed to think that the Greek words had\nreference to something more than the fact of the islanders not speaking\nLatin or Greek; the classical meaning of [Greek: Barbaroi].-ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nUpwards of a century before the reign of Nero, Cicero speaks at\nconsiderable length of our Malta in one of the Verrine orations. See Act.\nii. lib. iv. c. 46. \"Insula est Melita, judices,\" &c. There was a town, and\nVerres had established in it a manufactory of the fine cloth or cotton\nstuffs, the _Melitensis vestis_, for which the island is uniformly\ncelebrated:--\n\n\"Fertilis est Melite sterili vicina Cocyrae\n  Insula, quam Libyci verberat unda freti.\"\n\nOvid. Fast. iii. 567.\n\nAnd Silius Italicus has--\n\n\n      ----\"telaque _superba_\n_Lanigera_ Melite.\"\n\nPunic. xiv. 251.\n\nYet it may have been cotton after all--the present product of Malta. Cicero\ndescribes an _ancient_ temple of Juno situated on a promontory near the\ntown, so famous and revered, that, even in the time of Masinissa, at least\n150 years B.C., that prince had religiously restored some relics which his\nadmiral had taken from it. The plunder of this very temple is an article of\naccusation against Verres; and a deputation of Maltese (_legati\nMelitenses_) came to Rome to establish the charge. These are all the facts,\nI think, which can be gathered from Cicero; because I consider his\nexpression of _nudatae urbes_, in the working up of this article, a piece\nof rhetoric. Strabo merely marks the position of Melita, and says that the\nlap-dogs called [Greek: kunidia Melitaia] were sent from this island,\nthough some writers attribute them to the other Melite in the Adriatic,\n(lib. vi.) Diodorus, however, a Sicilian himself by birth, gives the\nfollowing remarkable testimony as to the state of the island in his time,\nwhich, it will be remembered, was considerably before the date of St.\nPaul's shipwreck. \"There are three islands to the south of Sicily, each of\nwhich has a city or town ([Greek: polin]), and harbours fitted for the safe\nreception of ships. The first of these is Melite, distant about 800 stadia\nfrom Syracuse, and possessing several harbours of surpassing excellence.\nIts inhabitants are rich and luxurious ([Greek: tous katoikountas tais\nousiais eudaimonas]). There are artizans of every kind ([Greek: pantodapous\ntais exgasias]); the best are those who weave cloth of a singular fineness\nand softness. The houses are worthy of admiration for their superb\nadornment with eaves and brilliant white-washing ([Greek: oikias axiologous\nkai kateskeuasmenas philotimos geissois kai koniamasi pezittotezon]).\"--\nLib. v. c. 12. Mela (ii. c. 7.) and Pliny (iii. 14.) simply mark the\nposition.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Maltese seem to have preserved a fondness and taste for architecture\nfrom the time of the knights--naturally enough occasioned by the\nincomparable materials at hand.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe passage which I have cited from Diodorus shows that the origin was much\nearlier.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 19. 1832.\n\nENGLISH AND GERMAN.--BEST STATE OF SOCIETY.\n\n\nIt may be doubted whether a composite language like the English is not a\nhappier instrument of expression than a homogeneous one like the German. We\npossess a wonderful richness and variety of modified meanings in our Saxon\nand Latin quasi-synonymes, which the Germans have not. For \"the pomp and\n_prodigality_ of Heaven,\" the Germans must have said \"_the\nspendthriftness_.\"[1]  Shakspeare is particularly happy in his use of the\nLatin synonymes, and in distinguishing between them and the Saxon.\n\n[Footnote 1: _Verschwendung_, I suppose.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThat is the most excellent state of society in which the patriotism of the\ncitizen ennobles, but does not merge, the individual energy of the man.\n\n\n\nSeptember 1. 1832.\n\nGREAT MINDS ANDROGYNOUS.--PHILOSOPHER'S ORDINARY\nLANGUAGE.\n\n\nIn chemistry and nosology, by extending the degree to a certain point, the\nconstituent proportion may be destroyed, and a new kind produced.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have known _strong_ minds with imposing, undoubting, Cobbett-like\nmanners, but I have never met a _great_ mind of this sort. And of the\nformer, they are at least as often wrong as right. The truth is, a great\nmind must be androgynous. Great minds--Swedenborg's for instance--are never\nwrong but in consequence of being in the right, but imperfectly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nA philosopher's ordinary language and admissions, in general conversation\nor writings _ad populum_, are as his watch compared with his astronomical\ntimepiece. He sets the former by the town-clock, not because he believes it\nright, but because his neighbours and his cook go by it.\n\n\n\n_January_ 2. 1833.\n\nJURIES.--BARRISTERS' AND PHYSICIANS' FEES.--QUACKS.--CAESAREAN OPERATION.--\nINHERITED DISEASE.\n\n\nI certainly think that juries would be more conscientious, if they were\nallowed a larger discretion. But, after all, juries cannot be better than\nthe mass out of which they are taken. And if juries are not honest and\nsingle-minded, they are the worst, because the least responsible,\ninstruments of judicial or popular tyranny.\n\n\nI should he sorry to see the honorary character of the fees of barristers\nand physicians done away with. Though it seems a shadowy distinction, I\nbelieve it to be beneficial in effect. It contributes to preserve the idea\nof a profession, of a class which belongs to the public,--in the employment\nand remuneration of which no law interferes, but the citizen acts as he\nlikes _in foro conscientiae_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere undoubtedly ought to be a declaratory act withdrawing expressly from\nthe St. John Longs and other quacks the protection which the law is\ninclined to throw around the mistakes or miscarriages of the regularly\neducated practitioner.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think there are only two things wanting to justify a surgeon in\nperforming the Caesarean operation: first, that he should possess\ninfallible knowledge of his art: and, secondly, that he should be\ninfallibly certain that he is infallible.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCan any thing he more dreadful than the thought that an innocent child has\ninherited from you a disease or a weakness, the penalty in yourself of sin\nor want of caution?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn the treatment of nervous cases, he is the best physician, who is the\nmost ingenious inspirer of hope.\n\n\n\n_January_ 3. 1833.\n\nMASON'S POETRY.\n\n\nI cannot bring myself to think much of Mason's poetry. I may be wrong; but\nall those passages in the Caractacus, which we learn to admire at school,\nnow seem to me one continued _falsetto_.\n\n\n\n_January_ 4. 1833.\n\nNORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION.--ALL AND THE WHOLE.\n\n\nNaturally one would have thought that there would have been greater\nsympathy between the northern and north-western states of the American\nUnion and England, than between England and the Southern states. There is\nten times as much English blood and spirit in New England as in Virginia,\nthe Carolinas, &c. Nevertheless, such has been the force of the interests\nof commerce, that now, and for some years past, the people of the North\nhate England with increasing bitterness, whilst, amongst those of the\nsouth, who are Jacobins, the British connection has become popular. Can\nthere ever be any thorough national fusion of the Northern and Southern\nstates? I think not. In fact, the Union will be shaken almost to\ndislocation whenever a very serious question between the states arises. The\nAmerican Union has no _centre_, and it is impossible now to make one. The\nmore they extend their borders into the Indians' land, the weaker will the\nnational cohesion be. But I look upon the states as splendid masses to be\nused, by and by, in the composition of two or three great governments.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is a great and important difference, both in politics and\nmetaphysics, between _all_ and _the whole_. The first can never be\nascertained as a standing quantity; the second, if comprehended by insight\ninto its parts, remains for ever known. Mr. Huskisson, I thought,\nsatisfactorily refuted the ship owners; and yet the shipping interest, who\nmust know where the shoe pinches, complain to this day.\n\n\n\n_January_ 7, 1833.\n\nNINTH ARTICLE.--SIN AND SINS.--OLD DIVINES.--PREACHING EXTEMPORE.\n\n\n\"Very far gone,\" is _quam longissime_ in the Latin of the ninth article,--\nas far gone as possible, that is, as was possible for _man_ to go; as far\nas was compatible with his having any redeemable qualities left in him. To\ntalk of man's being _utterly_ lost to good, is absurd; for then he would be\na devil at once.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOne mistake perpetually made by one of our unhappy parties in religion,--\nand with a pernicious tendency to Antinomianism,--is to confound _sin_ with\n_sins_. To tell a modest girl, the watchful nurse of an aged parent, that\nshe is full of _sins_ against God, is monstrous, and as shocking to reason\nas it is unwarrantable by Scripture. But to tell her that she, and all men\nand women, are of a sinful nature, and that, without Christ's redeeming\nlove and God's grace, she cannot be emancipated from its dominion, is true\nand proper.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn a marginal scrap Mr. C. wrote:--\"What are the essential doctrines of our\nreligion, if not sin and original sin, as the necessitating occasion, and\nthe redemption of sinners by the Incarnate Word as the substance of the\nChristian dispensation? And can these be intelligently believed without\nknowledge and steadfast meditation. By the unlearned, they may be worthily\nreceived, but not by the unthinking and self-ignorant, Christian.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo article of faith can be truly and duly preached without necessarily and\nsimultaneously infusing a deep sense of the indispensableness of a holy\nlife.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow pregnant with instruction, and with knowledge of all sorts, are the\nsermons of our old divines! in this respect, as in so many others, how\ndifferent from the major part of modern discourses!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery attempt, in a sermon, to cause emotion, except as the consequence of\nan impression made on the reason, or the understanding, or the will, I hold\nto be fanatical and sectarian.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo doubt preaching, in the proper sense of the word, is more effective than\nreading; and, therefore, I would not prohibit it, but leave a liberty to\nthe clergyman who feels himself able to accomplish it. But, as things now\nare, I am quite sure I prefer going to church to a pastor who reads his\ndiscourse: for I never yet heard more than one preacher without book, who\ndid not forget his argument in three minutes' time; and fall into vague and\nunprofitable declamation, and, generally, very coarse declamation too.\nThese preachers never progress; they eddy round and round. Sterility of\nmind follows their ministry.\n\n\n\n\n_January_ 20. 1833.\n\nCHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\n\nWhen the Church at the Reformation ceased to be extra-national, it\nunhappily became royal instead; its proper bearing is intermediate between\nthe crown and the people, with an inclination to the latter.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe present prospects of the Church weigh heavily on my soul. Oh! that the\nwords of a statesman-like philosophy could win their way through the\nignorant zealotry and sordid vulgarity of the leaders of the day!\n\n\n\n_February_ 5. 1833.\n\nUNION WITH IRELAND.\n\n\nIf any modification of the Union takes place, I trust it will be a total\ndivorce _a vinculo matrimonii_. I am sure we have lived a cat and dog life\nof it. Let us have no silly saving of one crown and two legislatures; that\nwould be preserving all the mischiefs without any of the goods, if there\nare any, of the union.\n\nI am deliberately of opinion, that England, in all its institutions, has\nreceived injury from its union with Ireland. My only difficulty is as to\nthe Protestants, to whom we owe protection. But I cannot forget that the\nProtestants themselves have greatly aided in accelerating the present\nhorrible state of things, by using that as a remedy and a reward which\nshould have been to them an opportunity.[1]\n\nIf the Protestant Church in Ireland is removed, of course the Romish Church\nmust be established in its place. There can be no resisting it in common\nreason.\n\nHow miserably imbecile and objectless has the English government of Ireland\nbeen for forty years past! Oh! for a great man--but one really great man,--\nwho could feel the weight and the power of a principle, and unflinchingly\nput it into act! But truly there is no vision in the land, and the people\naccordingly perisheth. See how triumphant in debate and in action O'Connell\nis! Why? Because he asserts a broad principle, and acts up to it, rests all\nhis body on it, and has faith in it. Our ministers--true Whigs in that--\nhave faith in nothing but expedients _de die in diem_. Indeed, what\nprinciples of government can _they_ have, who in the space of a month\nrecanted a life of political opinions, and now dare to threaten this and\nthat innovation at the huzza of a mob, or in pique at a parliamentary\ndefeat?\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Whatever may be thought of the settlement that followed the battle of the\nBoyne and the extinction of the war in Ireland, yet when this had been made\nand submitted to, it would have been the far wiser policy, I doubt not, to\nhave provided for the safety of the constitution by improving the quality\nof the elective franchise, leaving the eligibility open, or like the\nformer, limited only by considerations of property. Still, however, the\nscheme of exclusion and disqualification had its plausible side. The ink\nwas scarcely dry on the parchment-rolls and proscription-lists of the\nPopish parliament. The crimes of the man were generalized into attributes\nof his faith; and the Irish catholics collectively were held accomplices in\nthe perfidy and baseness of the king. Alas! his immediate adherents had\nafforded too great colour to the charge. The Irish massacre was in the\nmouth of every Protestant, not as an event to be remembered, but as a thing\nof recent expectation, fear still blending with the sense of deliverance.\nAt no time, therefore, could the disqualifying system have been enforced\nwith so little reclamation of the conquered party, or with so little\noutrage on the general feeling of the country. There was no time, when it\nwas so capable of being indirectly useful as a _sedative_ in order to the\napplication of the remedies directly indicated, or as a counter-power\nreducing to inactivity whatever disturbing forces might have interfered\nwith their operation. And had this use been made of these exclusive laws,\nand had they been enforced as the precursors and negative conditions,--but,\nabove all, as _bon\u00e2 fide_ accompaniments, of a process of _emancipation_,\nproperly and worthily so named, the code would at this day have been\nremembered in Ireland only as when, recalling a dangerous fever of our\nboyhood, we think of the nauseous drugs and drenching-horn, and\ncongratulate ourselves that our doctors now-a-days know how to manage these\nthings less coarsely. But this angry code was neglected as an opportunity,\nand mistaken for a _substitute_: _et hinc illae* lacrymae!_\"--Church and\nState, p. 195.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI sometimes think it just possible that the Dissenters may once more be\nanimated by a wiser and nobler spirit, and see their dearest interest in\nthe church of England as the bulwark and glory of Protestantism, as they\ndid at the Revolution. But I doubt their being able to resist the low\nfactious malignity to the church which has characterized them as a body for\nso many years.\n\n\n\n_February_ 16. 1833.\n\n\nFAUST.----MICHAEL SCOTT, GOETHE, SCHILLER, AND WORDSWORTH.\n\n\nBefore I had ever seen any part of Goethe's Faust[1], though, of course,\nwhen I was familiar enough with Marlowe's, I conceived and drew up the plan\nof a work, a drama, which was to be, to my mind, what the Faust was to\nGoethe's. My Faust was old Michael Scott; a much better and more likely\noriginal than Faust. He appeared in the midst of his college of devoted\ndisciples, enthusiastic, ebullient, shedding around him bright surmises of\ndiscoveries fully perfected in after-times, and inculcating the study of\nnature and its secrets as the pathway to the acquisition of power. He did\nnot love knowledge for itself--for its own exceeding great reward--but in\norder to be powerful. This poison-speck infected his mind from the\nbeginning. The priests suspect him, circumvent him, accuse him; he is\ncondemned, and thrown into solitary confinement: this constituted the\n_prologus_ of the drama. A pause of four or five years takes place, at the\nend of which Michael escapes from prison, a soured, gloomy, miserable man.\nHe will not, cannot study; of what avail had all his study been to him? His\nknowledge, great as it was, had failed to preserve him from the cruel fangs\nof the persecutors; he could not command the lightning or the storm to\nwreak their furies upon the heads of those whom he hated and contemned, and\nyet feared. Away with learning! away with study! to the winds with all\npretences to knowledge! We _know_ nothing; we are fools, wretches, mere\nbeasts. Anon I began to tempt him. I made him dream, gave him wine, and\npassed the most exquisite of women before him, but out of his reach. Is\nthere, then, no knowledge by which these pleasures can be commanded? _That\nway_ lay witchcraft, and accordingly to witchcraft Michael turns with all\nhis soul. He has many failures and some successes; he learns the chemistry\nof exciting drugs and exploding powders, and some of the properties of\ntransmitted and reflected light: his appetites and his curiosity are both\nstimulated, and his old craving for power and mental domination over others\nrevives. At last Michael tries to raise the Devil, and the Devil comes at\nhis call. My Devil was to be, like Goethe's, the universal humorist, who\nshould make all things vain and nothing worth, by a perpetual collation of\nthe great with the little in the presence of the infinite. I had many a\ntrick for him to play, some better, I think, than any in the Faust. In the\nmean time, Michael is miserable; he has power, but no peace, and he every\nday more keenly feels the tyranny of hell surrounding him. In vain he seems\nto himself to assert the most absolute empire over the Devil, by imposing\nthe most extravagant tasks; one thing is as easy as another to the Devil.\n\"What next, Michael?\" is repeated every day with more imperious servility.\nMichael groans in spirit; his power is a curse: he commands women and wine!\nbut the women seem fictitious and devilish, and the wine does not make him\ndrunk. He now begins to hate the Devil, and tries to cheat him. He studies\nagain, and explores the darkest depths of sorcery for a receipt to cozen\nhell; but all in vain. Sometimes the Devil's finger turns over the page for\nhim, and points out an experiment, and Michael hears a whisper--\"Try\n_that_, Michael!\" The horror increases; and Michael feels that he is a\nslave and a condemned criminal. Lost to hope, he throws himself into every\nsensual excess,--in the mid-career of which he sees Agatha, my Margaret,\nand immediately endeavours to seduce her. Agatha loves him; and the Devil\nfacilitates their meetings; but she resists Michael's attempts to ruin her,\nand implores him not to act so as to forfeit her esteem. Long struggles of\npassion ensue, in the result of which his affections are called forth\nagainst his appetites, and, love-born, the idea of a redemption of the lost\nwill dawns upon his mind. This is instantaneously perceived by the Devil;\nand for the first time the humorist becomes severe and menacing. A fearful\nsuccession of conflicts between Michael and the Devil takes place, in which\nAgatha helps and suffers. In the end, after subjecting him to every\nimaginable horror and agony, I made him triumphant, and poured peace into\nhis soul in the conviction of a salvation for sinners through God's grace.\n\nThe intended theme of the Faust is the consequences of a misology, or\nhatred and depreciation of knowledge caused by an originally intense thirst\nfor knowledge baffled. But a love of knowledge for itself, and for pure\nends, would never produce such a misology, but only a love of it for base\nand unworthy purposes. There is neither causation nor progression in the\nFaust; he is a ready-made conjuror from the very beginning; the _incredulus\nodi_ is felt from the first line. The sensuality and the thirst after\nknowledge are unconnected with each other. Mephistopheles and Margaret are\nexcellent; but Faust himself is dull and meaningless. The scene in\nAuerbach's cellars is one of the best, perhaps the very best; that on the\nBrocken is also fine; and all the songs are beautiful. But there is no\nwhole in the poem; the scenes are mere magic-lantern pictures, and a large\npart of the work is to me very flat. The German is very pure and fine.\n\nThe young men in Germany and England who admire Lord Byron, prefer Goethe\nto Schiller; but you may depend upon it, Goethe does not, nor ever will,\ncommand the common mind of the people of Germany as Schiller does. Schiller\nhad two legitimate phases in his intellectual character:--the first as\nauthor of the Robbers--a piece which must not be considered with reference\nto Shakspeare, but as a work of the mere material sublime, and in that line\nit is undoubtedly very powerful indeed. It is quite genuine, and deeply\nimbued with Schiller's own soul. After this he outgrew the composition of\nsuch plays as the Robbers, and at once took his true and only rightful\nstand in the grand historical drama--the Wallenstein;--not the intense\ndrama of passion,--he was not master of that--but the diffused drama of\nhistory, in which alone he had ample scope for his varied powers. The\nWallenstein is the greatest of his works; it is not unlike Shakspeare's\nhistorical plays--a species by itself. You may take up any scene, and it\nwill please you by itself; just as you may in Don Quixote, which you read\n_through_ once or twice only, but which you read _in_ repeatedly. After\nthis point it was, that Goethe and other writers injured by their theories\nthe steadiness and originality of Schiller's mind; and in every one of his\nworks after the Wallenstein you may perceive the fluctuations of his taste\nand principles of composition. He got a notion of re-introducing the\ncharacterlessness of the Greek tragedy with a chorus, as in the Bride of\nMessina, and he was for infusing more lyric verse into it. Schiller\nsometimes affected to despise the Robbers and the other works of his first\nyouth; whereas he ought to have spoken of them as of works not in a right\nline, but full of excellence in their way. In his ballads and lighter\nlyrics Goethe is most excellent. It is impossible to praise him too highly\nin this respect. I like the Wilhelm Meister the best of his prose works.\nBut neither Schiller's nor Goethe's prose style approaches to Lessing's,\nwhose writings, for _manner_, are absolutely perfect.\n\nAlthough Wordsworth and Goethe are not much alike, to be sure, upon the\nwhole; yet they both have this peculiarity of utter non-sympathy with the\nsubjects of their poetry. They are always, both of them, spectators _ab\nextra_,--feeling _for_, but never _with_, their characters. Schiller is a\nthousand times more _hearty_ than Goethe.\n\nI was once pressed--many years ago--to translate the Faust; and I so far\nentertained the proposal as to read the work through with great attention,\nand to revive in my mind my own former plan of Michael Scott. But then I\nconsidered with myself whether the time taken up in executing the\ntranslation might not more worthily be devoted to the composition of a work\nwhich, even if parallel in some points to the Faust, should be truly\noriginal in motive and execution, and therefore more interesting and\nvaluable than any version which I could make; and, secondly, I debated with\nmyself whether it became my moral character to render into English--and so\nfar, certainly, lend my countenance to language--much of which I thought\nvulgar, licentious, and blasphemous. I need not tell you that I never put\npen to paper as a translator of Faust.\n\nI have read a good deal of Mr. Hayward's version, and I think it done in a\nvery manly style; but I do not admit the argument for prose translations. I\nwould in general rather see verse attempted in so capable a language as\nours. The French cannot help themselves, of course, with such a language as\ntheirs.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"The poem was first published in 1790, and forms the commencement of the\nseventh volume of _Goethe's Schriften, Wien und Leipzig, bey J. Stahel and\nG. J. Goschen_, 1790. This edition is now before me. The poem entitled,\n_Faust, ein Fragment_ (not _Doktor Faust, ein Trauerspiel_, as D\u00f6ring\nsays), and contains no prologue or dedication of any sort. It commences\nwith the scene in Faust's study, _ant\u00e8_, p. 17., and is continued, as now,\ndown to the passage ending, _ant\u00e8_, p. 26. line 5. In the original, the\nline--\n\n  \"Und froh ist, wenn er Regenw\u00fcrmer findet,\"\n\nends the scene.\n\nThe next scene is one between Faust and Mephistopheles, and begins thus:--\n\n  \"Und was der ganzen Menschheit zugetheilt ist,\"\n\n_i. e._ with the passage (_ant\u00e8_,  p. 70.) beginning, \"I will enjoy, in my\nown heart's core, all that is parcelled out among mankind,\" &c. All that\nintervenes, in later editions, is wanting. It is thenceforth continued, as\nnow, to the end of the cathedral scene (_ant\u00e8_, p. (170)), except that the\nwhole scene, in which Valentine is killed, is wanting. Thus Margaret's\nprayer to the Virgin and the cathedral scene come together, and form the\nconclusion of the work. According to D\u00fcring's Verzeichniss, there was no\nnew edition of Faust until 1807. According to Dr. Sieglitz, the first part\nof Faust first appeared, in its present shape, in the collected edition of\nGoethe's works, which was published in 1808.--_Hayward's Translation of\nFaust_, second edition, note, p. 215.]\n\n\n\n_February_ 17. 1833.\n\nBEAUMONT AND FLETCHER.--BEN JONSON.--MASSINGER.\n\n\nIn the romantic drama Beaumont and Fletcher are almost supreme. Their plays\nare in general most truly delightful. I could read the Beggar's Bush from\nmorning to night. How sylvan and sunshiny it is! The Little French Lawyer\nis excellent. Lawrit is conceived and executed from first to last in\ngenuine comic humour. Monsieur Thomas is also capital. I have no doubt\nwhatever that the first act and the first scene of the second act of the\nTwo Noble Kinsmen are Shakspeare's. Beaumont and Fletcher's plots are, to\nbe sure, wholly inartificial; they only care to pitch a character into a\nposition to make him or her talk; you must swallow all their gross\nimprobabilities, and, taking it all for granted, attend only to the\ndialogue. How lamentable it is that no gentleman and scholar can he found\nto edit these beautiful plays![1] Did the name of criticism ever descend so\nlow as in the hands of those two fools and knaves, Seward and Simpson?\nThere are whole scenes in their edition which I could with certainty put\nback into their original verse, and more that could he replaced in their\nnative prose. Was there ever such an absolute disregard of literary fame as\nthat displayed by Shakspeare, and Beaumont and Fletcher?[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI believe Mr. Dyce could edit Beaumont and Fletcher as well as any man of\nthe present or last generation; but the truth is, the limited sale of the\nlate editions of Ben Jonson, Shirley, &c., has damped the spirit of\nenterprise amongst the respectable publishers. Still I marvel that some\ncheap reprint of B. and F. is not undertaken.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"The men of the greatest genius, as far as we can judge from their own\nworks, or from the accounts of their contemporaries, appear to have been of\ncalm and tranquil temper, in all that related to themselves. In the inward\nassurance of permanent fame, they seem to have been either indifferent or\nresigned, with regard to immediate reputation.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Shakspeare's evenness and sweetness of temper were almost proverbial in\nhis own age. That this did not arise from ignorance of his own comparative\ngreatness, we have abundant proof in his sonnets, which could scarcely have\nbeen known to Mr. Pope, when he asserted, that our great bard 'grew\nimmortal in his own despite.'\"--_Biog. Lit._ vol. i, p. 32.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn Ben Jonson you have an intense and burning art. Some of his plots, that\nof the Alchemist, for example, are perfect. Ben Jonson and Beaumont and\nFletcher would, if united, have made a great dramatist indeed, and yet not\nhave come near Shakspeare; but no doubt Ben Jonson was the greatest man\nafter Shakspeare in that age of dramatic genius.\n\n\nThe styles of Massinger's plays and the Sampson Agonistes are the two\nextremes of the arc within which the diction of dramatic poetry may\noscillate. Shakspeare in his great plays is the midpoint. In the Samson\nAgonistes, colloquial language is left at the greatest distance, yet\nsomething of it is preserved, to render the dialogue probable: in Massinger\nthe style is differenced, but differenced in the smallest degree possible,\nfrom animated conversation by the vein of poetry.\n\nThere's such a divinity doth hedge our Shakspeare round, that we cannot\neven imitate his style. I tried to imitate his manner in the Remorse, and,\nwhen I had done, I found I had been tracking Beaumont and Fletcher, and\nMassinger instead. It is really very curious. At first sight, Shakspeare\nand his contemporary dramatists seem to write in styles much alike: nothing\nso easy as to fall into that of Massinger and the others; whilst no one has\never yet produced one scene conceived and expressed in the Shakspearian\nidiom. I suppose it is because Shakspeare is universal, and, in fact, has\nno _manner_; just as you can so much more readily copy a picture than\nNature herself.\n\n\n\n_February_ 20. 1833.\n\nHOUSE OF COMMONS APPOINTING THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.\n\n\nI was just now reading Sir John Cam Hobhouse's answer to Mr. Hume, I\nbelieve, upon the point of transferring the patronage of the army and navy\nfrom the Crown to the House of Commons. I think, if I had been in the House\nof Commons, I would have said, \"that, ten or fifteen years ago, I should\nhave considered Sir J. C. H.'s speech quite unanswerable,--it being clear\nconstitutional law that the House of Commons has not, nor ought to have,\nany share, directly or indirectly, in the appointment of the officers of\nthe army or navy. But now that the King had been reduced, by the means and\nprocurement of the Honourable Baronet and his friends, to a puppet, which,\nso far from having any independent will of its own, could not resist a\nmeasure which it hated and condemned, it became a matter of grave\nconsideration whether it was not necessary to vest the appointment of such\nofficers in a body like the House of Commons, rather than in a junta of\nministers, who were obliged to make common cause with the mob and\ndemocratic press for the sake of keeping their places.\"\n\n\n\n_March_ 9. 1833.\n\nPENAL CODE IN IRELAND.--CHURCHMEN.\n\n\nThe penal code in Ireland, in the beginning of the last century, was\njustifiable, as a temporary mean of enabling government to take breath and\nlook about them; and if right measures had been systematically pursued in a\nright spirit, there can be no doubt that all, or the greater part, of\nIreland would have become Protestant. Protestantism under the Charter\nSchools was greatly on the increase in the early part of that century, and\nthe complaints of the Romish priests to that effect are on record. But,\nunfortunately, the drenching-horn was itself substituted for the medicine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere seems to me, at present, to be a curse upon the English church, and\nupon the governors of all institutions connected with the orderly\nadvancement of national piety and knowledge; it is the curse of prudence,\nas they miscall it--in fact, of fear.\n\nClergymen are now almost afraid to explain in their pulpits the grounds of\ntheir being Protestants. They are completely cowed by the vulgar harassings\nof the press and of our Hectoring sciolists in Parliament. There should be\nno _party_ politics in the pulpit to be sure; but every church in England\nought to resound with national politics,--I mean the sacred character of\nthe national church, and an exposure of the base robbery from the nation\nitself--for so indeed it is[1]--about to be committed by these ministers,\nin order to have a sop to throw to the Irish agitators, who will, of\ncourse, only cut the deeper, and come the oftener. You cannot buy off a\nbarbarous invader.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"That the maxims of a pure morality, and those sublime truths of the divine\nunity and attributes, which a Plato found it hard to learn, and more\ndifficult to reveal; that these should have become the almost hereditary\nproperty of childhood and poverty, of the hovel and the workshop; that even\nto the unlettered they sound as _common-place_; this is a phenomenon which\nmust withhold all but minds of the most vulgar cast from undervaluing the\nservices even of the pulpit and the reading-desk. Yet he who should confine\nthe efficiency of an established church to these, can hardly be placed in a\nmuch higher rank of intellect. That to every parish throughout the kingdom\nthere is transplanted a germ of civilization; that in the remotest villages\nthere is a nucleus, round which the capabilities of the place may\ncrystallize and brighten; a model sufficiently superior to excite, yet\nsufficiently near to encourage and facilitate imitation; _this_\nunobtrusive, continuous agency of a Protestant church establishment, _this_\nit is, which the patriot and the philanthropist, who would fain unite the\nlove of peace with the faith in the progressive amelioration of mankind,\ncannot estimate at too high a price. 'It cannot be valued with the gold of\nOphir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire. No mention shall be made of\ncoral or of pearls; for the price of wisdom is above rubies.'--The\nclergyman is with his parishioners and among them; he is neither in the\ncloistered cell, nor in the wilderness, but a neighbour and family man,\nwhose education and rank admit him to the mansion of the rich landholder,\nwhile his duties make him the frequent visitor of the farm-house and the\ncottage. He is, or he may become, connected with the families of his parish\nor its vicinity by marriage. And among the instances of the blindness, or\nat best of the short-sightedness, which it is the nature of cupidity to\ninflict, I know few more striking than the clamours of the farmers against\nchurch property. Whatever was not paid to the clergyman would inevitably at\nthe next lease be paid to the landholder; while, as the case at present\nstands, the revenues of the church are in some sort the reversionary\nproperty of every family that may have a member educated for the church, or\na daughter that may marry a clergyman. Instead of being _foreclosed_ and\nimmovable, it is, in fact, the only species of landed property that is\nessentially moving and circulative. That there exist no inconveniences who\nwill pretend to assert?--But I have yet to expect the proof, that the\ninconveniences are greater in this than in any other species; or that\neither the farmers or the clergy would be benefited by forcing the latter\nto become either _Trullibers_ or salaried _placemen_.\"--_Church and State_,\np. 90.]\n\n\n\n_March_ 12. 1833.\n\nCORONATION OATHS.\n\n\nLord Grey has, in Parliament, said two things: first, that the Coronation\nOaths only bind the King in his executive capacity; and, secondly, that\nmembers of the House of Commons are bound to represent by their votes the\nwishes and opinions of their constituents, and not their own. Put these two\ntogether, and tell me what useful part of the constitutional monarchy of\nEngland remains. It is clear that the Coronation Oaths would be no better\nthan Highgate oaths. For in his executive capacity the King _cannot_ do any\nthing, against the doing of which the oaths bind him; it is _only_ in his\nlegislative character that he possesses a free agency capable of being\nbound. The nation meant to bind _that_.\n\n\n\n_March_ 14. 1833.\n\nDIVINITY.--PROFESSIONS AND TRADES.\n\n\nDivinity is essentially the first of the professions, because it is\nnecessary for all at all times; law and physic are only necessary for some\nat some times. I speak of them, of course, not in their abstract existence,\nbut in their applicability to man.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery true science bears necessarily within itself the germ of a cognate\nprofession, and the more you can elevate trades into professions the\nbetter.\n\n\n\n_March_ 17. 1833.\n\nMODERN POLITICAL ECONOMY.\n\n\nWhat solemn humbug this modern political economy is! What is there true of\nthe little that is true in their dogmatic books, which is not a simple\ndeduction from the moral and religious _credenda_ and _agenda_ of any good\nman, and with which we were not all previously acquainted, and upon which\nevery man of common sense instinctively acted? I know none. But what they\ntruly state, they do not truly understand in its ultimate grounds and\ncauses; and hence they have sometimes done more mischief by their half-\nignorant and half-sophistical reasonings about, and deductions from, well-\nfounded positions, than they could have done by the promulgation of\npositive error. This particularly applies to their famous ratios of\nincrease between man and the means of his subsistence. Political economy,\nat the highest, can never be a pure science. You may demonstrate that\ncertain properties inhere in the arch, which yet no bridge-builder _can_\never reduce into brick and mortar; but an abstract conclusion in a matter\nof political economy, the premisses of which neither exist now, nor ever\nwill exist within the range of the wildest imagination, is not a truth, but\na chimera--a practical falsehood. For there are no theorems in political\neconomy--but problems only. Certain things being actually so and so; the\nquestion is, _how_ to _do_ so and so with them. Political _philosophy_,\nindeed, points to ulterior ends, but even those ends are all practical; and\nif you desert the conditions of reality, or of common probability, you may\nshow forth your eloquence or your fancy, but the utmost you can produce\nwill be a Utopia or Oceana.\n\nYou talk about making this article cheaper by reducing its price in the\nmarket from 8_d_. to 6_d_. But suppose, in so doing, you have rendered your\ncountry weaker against a foreign foe; suppose you have demoralized\nthousands of your fellow-countrymen, and have sown discontent between one\nclass of society and another, your article is tolerably dear, I take it,\nafter all. Is not its real price enhanced to every Christian and patriot a\nhundred-fold?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_All_ is an endless fleeting abstraction; _the whole_ is a reality.\n\n\n\n_March_ 31. 1833.\n\nNATIONAL DEBT.--PROPERTY TAX.--DUTY OF LANDHOLDERS.\n\nWhat evil results now to this country, taken at large, from the actual\nexistence of the National Debt? I never could get a plain and practical\nanswer to that question. I do not advert to the past loss of capital,\nalthough it is hard to see how that capital can be said to have been\nunproductive, which produces, in the defence of the nation itself, the\nconditions of the permanence and productivity of all other capital. As to\ntaxation to pay the interest, how can the country suffer by a process,\nunder which the money is never one minute out of the pockets of the people?\nYou may just as well say that a man is weakened by the circulation of his\nblood. There may, certainly, be particular local evils and grievances\nresulting from the mode of taxation or collection; but how can that debt be\nin any proper sense a burthen to the nation, which the nation owes to\nitself, and to no one but itself? It is a juggle to talk of the nation\nowing the capital or the interest to the stockholders; it owes to itself\nonly. Suppose the interest to be owing to the Emperor of Russia, and then\nyou would feel the difference of a debt in the proper sense. It is really\nand truly nothing more in effect than so much moneys or money's worth,\nraised annually by the state for the purpose of quickening industry.[1]\n\nI should like to see a well graduated property tax, accompanied by a large\nloan.\n\nOne common objection to a property tax is, that it tends to diminish the\naccumulation of capital. In my judgment, one of the chief sources of the\nbad economy of the country now is the enormous aggregation of capitals.\n\nWhen shall we return to a sound conception of the right to property--\nnamely, as being official, implying and demanding the performance of\ncommensurate duties! Nothing but the most horrible perversion of humanity\nand moral justice, under the specious name of political economy, could have\nblinded men to this truth as to the possession of land,--the law of God\nhaving connected indissolubly the cultivation of every rood of earth with\nthe maintenance and watchful labour of man. But money, stock, riches by\ncredit, transferable and convertible at will, are under no such\nobligations; and, unhappily, it is from the selfish autocratic possession\nof _such_ property, that our landholders have learnt their present theory\nof trading with that which was never meant to be an object of commerce.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee the splendid essay in the Friend (vol. ii, p. 47.) on the vulgar errors\nrespecting taxes and taxation.\n\n\"A great statesman, lately deceased, in one of his anti-ministerial\nharangues against some proposed impost, said, 'The nation has been already\nbled in every vein, and is faint with loss of blood.' This blood, however,\nwas circulating in the mean time through the whole body of the state, and\nwhat was received into one chamber of the heart was instantly sent out\nagain at the other portal. Had he wanted a metaphor to convey the possible\ninjuries of taxation, he might have found one less opposite to the fact, in\nthe known disease of aneurism, or relaxation of the coats of particular\nvessels, by a disproportionate accumulation of blood in them, which\nsometimes occurs when the circulation has been suddenly and violently\nchanged, and causes helplessness, or even mortal stagnation, though the\ntotal quantity of blood remains the same in the system at large.\n\n\"But a fuller and fairer symbol of taxation, both in its possible good and\nevil effects, is to be found in the evaporation of waters from the surface\nof the earth. The sun may draw up the moisture from the river, the morass,\nand the ocean, to be given back in genial showers to the garden, to the\npasture, and the corn field; but it may, likewise, force away the moisture\nfrom the fields of tillage, to drop it on the stagnant pool, the saturated\nswamp, or the unprofitable sand-waste. The gardens in the south of Europe\nsupply, perhaps, a not less apt illustration of a system of finance\njudiciously conducted, where the tanks or reservoirs would represent the\ncapital of a nation, and the hundred rills, hourly varying their channels\nand directions under the gardener's spade, give a pleasing image of the\ndispersion of that capital through the whole population by the joint effect\nof taxation and trade. For taxation itself is a part of commerce, and the\ngovernment maybe fairly considered as a great manufacturing house, carrying\non, in different places, by means of its partners and overseers, the trades\nof the shipbuilder, the clothier, the iron-founder,\" &c. &c.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_April_ 5. 1833.\n\nMASSINGER.--SHAKSPEARE.--HIERONIMO.\n\n\nTo please me, a poem must be either music or sense; if it is neither, I\nconfess I cannot interest myself in it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe first act of the Virgin Martyr is as fine an act as I remember in any\nplay. The Very Woman is, I think, one of the most perfect plays we have.\nThere is some good fun in the first scene between Don John, or Antonio, and\nCuculo, his master[1]; and can any thing exceed the skill and sweetness of\nthe scene between him and his mistress, in which he relates his story?[2]\nThe Bondman is also a delightful play. Massinger is always entertaining;\nhis plays have the interest of novels.\n\nBut, like most of his contemporaries, except Shakspeare, Massinger often\ndeals in exaggerated passion. Malefort senior, in the Unnatural Combat,\nhowever he may have had the moral will to be so wicked, could never have\nactually done all that he is represented as guilty of, without losing his\nsenses. He would have been, in fact, mad. Regan and Goneril are the only\npictures of the unnatural in Shakspeare; the pure unnatural--and you will\nobserve that Shakspeare has left their hideousness unsoftened or\ndiversified by a single line of goodness or common human frailty. Whereas\nin Edmund, for whom passion, the sense of shame as a bastard, and ambition,\noffer some plausible excuses, Shakspeare has placed many redeeming traits.\nEdmund is what, under certain circumstances, any man of powerful intellect\nmight be, if some other qualities and feelings were cut off. Hamlet is,\ninclusively, an Edmund, but different from him as a whole, on account of\nthe controlling agency of other principles which Edmund had not.\n\nIt is worth while to remark the use which Shakspeare always makes of his\nbold villains as vehicles for expressing opinions and conjectures of a\nnature too hazardous for a wise man to put forth directly as his own, or\nfrom any sustained character.\n\n[Footnote 1: Act iii. sc. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 2: Act iv. sc. 3.:--\n\n  \"ANT. Not far from where my father lives, a lady,\nA neighbour by, bless'd with as great a beauty\nAs nature durst bestow without undoing,\nDwelt, and most happily, as I thought then,\nAnd bless'd the home a thousand times she dwelt in.\nThis beauty, in the blossom of my youth,\nWhen my first fire knew no adulterate incense,\nNor I no way to flatter, but my fondness;\nIn all the bravery my friends could show me,\nIn all the faith my innocence could give me,\nIn the best language my true tongue could tell me,\nAnd all the broken sighs my sick heart lent me,\nI sued and served: long did I love this lady,\nLong was my travail, long my trade to win her;\nWith all the duty of my soul, I served her.\n\n  ALM. How feelingly he speaks! (_Aside_.) And she loved you too?\nIt must be so.\n\n  ANT.        I would it had, dear lady;\nThis story had been needless, and this place,\nI think, unknown to me.\n\n  ALM. Were your bloods equal?\n\n  ANT. Yes; and I thought our hearts too.\n\n  ALM. Then she must love.\n\n  ANT. She did--but never me; she could not love me,\nShe would not love, she hated; more, she scorn'd me,\nAnd in so poor and base a way abused me,\nFor all my services, for all my bounties,\nSo bold neglects flung on me--\n\n  ALM.                         An ill woman!\nBelike you found some rival in your love, then?\n\n  ANT. How perfectly she points me to my story! (_Aside_.)\nMadam, I did; and one whose pride and anger,\nIll manners, and worse mien, she doted on,\nDoted to my undoing, and my ruin.\nAnd, but for honour to your sacred beauty,\nAnd reverence to the noble sex, though she fall,\nAs she must fall that durst be so unnoble,\nI should say something unbeseeming me.\nWhat out of love, and worthy love, I gave her,\nShame to her most unworthy mind! to fools,\nTo girls, and fiddlers, to her boys she flung,\nAnd in disdain of me.\n\n  ALM.                Pray you take me with you.\nOf what complexion was she?\n\n  ANT.                 But that I dare not\nCommit so great a sacrilege 'gainst virtue,\nShe look'd not much unlike--though far, far short,\nSomething, I see, appears--your pardon, madam--\nHer eyes would smile so, but her eyes could cozen;\nAnd so she would look sad; but yours is pity,\nA noble chorus to my wretched story;\nHers was disdain and cruelty.\n\n  ALM.                        Pray heaven,\nMine be no worse! he has told me a strange story, (_Aside_.)\" &c.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe parts pointed out in Hieronimo as Ben Jonson's bear no traces of his\nstyle; but they are very like Shakspeare's; and it is very remarkable that\nevery one of them re-appears in full form and development, and tempered\nwith mature judgment, in some one or other of Shakspeare's great pieces.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nBy Hieronimo Mr. Coleridge meant The Spanish Tragedy, and not the previous\nplay, which is usually called The First Part of Jeronimo. The Spanish\nTragedy is, upon the authority of Heywood, attributed to Kyd. It is\nsupposed that Ben Jonson originally performed the part of Hieronimo, and\nhence it has been surmised that certain passages and whole scenes connected\nwith that character, and not found in some of the editions of the play,\nare, in fact, Ben Jonson's own writing. Some of these supposed\ninterpolations are amongst the best things in the Spanish Tragedy; the\nstyle is singularly unlike Jonson's, whilst there are turns and particular\nimages which do certainly seem to have been imitated by or from Shakspeare.\nMr. Lamb at one time gave them to Webster. Take this, passage, in the\nfourth act:--\n\n  \"HIERON. What make you with your torches in the dark?\n\n  PEDRO. You bid us light them, and attend you here.\n\n  HIERON. No! you are deceived; not I; you are deceived.\nWas I so mad to bid light torches now?\nLight me your torches at the mid of noon,\nWhen as the sun-god rides in all his glory;\nLight me your torches then.\n\n  PEDRO. Then we burn day-light.\n\n  HIERON. _Let it be burnt; Night is a murd'rous slut,\nThat would not have her treasons to be seen;\nAnd yonder pale-faced Hecate there, the moon,\nDoth give consent to that is done in darkness;\nAnd all those stars that gaze upon her face\nAre aglets on her sleeve, pins on her train;\nAnd those that should be powerful and divine,\nDo sleep in darkness when they most should shine._\n\n  PEDRO. Provoke them not, fair sir, with tempting words.\nThe heavens are gracious, and your miseries and sorrow\nMake you speak you know not what\n\n  HIERON. _Villain! thou liest, and thou dost nought\nBut tell me I am mad: thou liest, I am not mad;\nI know thee to be Pedro, and he Jaques;\nI'll prove it thee; and were I mad, how could I?\nWhere was she the same night, when my Horatio was murder'd!\nShe should have shone then; search thou the book:\nHad the moon shone in my boy's face, there was a kind of grace,\nThat I know--nay, I do know, had the murderer seen him,\nHis weapon would have fallen, and cut the earth,\nHad he been framed of nought but blood and death,\" &c._\n\nAgain, in the fifth act:--\n\n  \"HIERON. But are you sure that they are dead?\n\n  CASTILE. Ay, slain, too sure.\n\n  HIERON. What, and yours too?\n\n  VICEROY. Ay, all are dead; not one of them survive.\n\n  HIBRON. Nay, then I care not--come, we shall be friends;\nLet us lay our heads together.\nSee, here's a goodly noose will hold them all.\n\nVICEROY. O damned devil! how secure he is!\n\n  HIERON. Secure! why dost thou wonder at it?\n_I tell thee, Viceroy, this day I've seen Revenge,\nd in that sight am grown a prouder monarch\nThan ever sate under the crown of Spain.\nHad I as many lives at there be stars,_,\n_As many heavens to go to as those lives,\nI'd give them all, ay, and my soul to boot,\nBut I would see thee ride in this red pool.\nMethinks, since I grew inward with revenge,\nI cannot look with scorn enough on death._\n\n  KING. What! dost thou mock us, slave? Bring tortures forth.\n\n  HIERON. _Do, do, do; and meantime I'll torture you.\nYou had a son as I take it, and your son\nShould have been married to your daughter: ha! was it not so?\nYou had a son too, he was my liege's nephew.\nHe was proud and politic--had he lived,\nHe might have come to wear the crown of Spain:\nI think 't was so--'t was I that killed him;\nLook you--this same hand was it that stabb'd\nHis heart--do you see this hand?\nFor one Horatio, if you ever knew him--\nA youth, one that they hang'd up in his father's garden--\nOne that did force your valiant son to yield_,\" &c.--ED. ]\n\n_April_ 7. 1833.\n\nLOVE'S LABOUR LOST.--GIFFORD'S MASSINGER.--SHAKSPEARE.--THE OLD DRAMATISTS.\n\nI think I could point out to a half line what is really Shakspeare's in\nLove's Labour Lost, and some other of the not entirely genuine plays. What\nhe wrote in that play is of his earliest manner, having the all-pervading\nsweetness which he never lost, and that extreme condensation which makes\nthe couplets fall into epigrams, as in the Venus and Adonis, and Rape of\nLucrece. [1] In the drama alone, as Shakspeare soon found out, could the\nsublime poet and profound philosopher find the conditions of a compromise.\nIn the Love's Labour Lost there are many faint sketches of some of his\nvigorous portraits in after-life--as for example, in particular, of\nBenedict and Beatrice.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"In Shakspeare's _Poems_ the creative power and the intellectual energy\nwrestle as in a war embrace. Each in its excess of strength seems to\nthreaten the extinction of the other. At length, in the drama, they were\nreconciled, and fought each with its shield before the breast of the other.\nOr like two rapid streams, that, at their first meeting within narrow and\nrocky banks, mutually strive to repel each other, and intermix reluctantly,\nand in tumult; but soon finding a wider channel and more yielding shores,\nblend, and dilate, and flow on in one current, and with one voice.\"--_Biog.\nLit._ vol. ii. p. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nMr. Coleridge, of course, alluded to Biron and Rosaline; and there are\nother obvious prolusions, as the scene of the masque with the courtiers,\ncompared with the play in A Midsummer Night's Dream.--ED.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGifford has done a great deal for the text of Massinger, but not as much as\nmight easily be done. His comparison of Shakspeare with his contemporary\ndramatists is obtuse indeed.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee his _Introduction to Massinger, vol_.i. p. 79., in which, amongst other\nmost extraordinary assertions, Mr. Gifford pronounces that _rhythmical\nmodulation is not one of Shakspeare's merits!_--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn Shakspeare one sentence begets the next naturally; the meaning is all\ninwoven. He goes on kindling like a meteor through the dark atmosphere;\nyet, when the creation in its outline is once perfect, then he seems to\nrest from his labour, and to smile upon his work, and tell himself that it\nis very good. You see many scenes and parts of scenes which are simply\nShakspeare's, disporting himself in joyous triumph and vigorous fun after a\ngreat achievement of his highest genius.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe old dramatists took great liberties in respect of bringing parties in\nscene together, and representing one as not recognizing the other under\nsome faint disguise. Some of their finest scenes are constructed on this\nground. Shakspeare avails himself of this artifice only twice, I think,--in\nTwelfth Night, where the two are with great skill kept apart till the end\nof the play; and in the Comedy of Errors, which is a pure farce, and should\nbe so considered. The definition of a farce is, an improbability or even\nimpossibility granted in the outset, see what odd and laughable events will\nfairly follow from it!\n\n\n\n_April _8. 1833.\n\nSTATESMEN.--BURKE.\n\nI never was much subject to violent political humours or accesses of\nfeelings. When I was very young, I wrote and spoke very enthusiastically,\nbut it was always on subjects connected with some grand general principle,\nthe violation of which I thought I could point out. As to mere details of\nadministration, I honestly thought that ministers, and men in office, must,\nof course, know much better than any private person could possibly do; and\nit was not till I went to Malta, and had to correspond with official\ncharacters myself, that I fully understood the extreme shallowness and\nignorance with which men of some note too were able, after a certain\nfashion, to carry on the government of important departments of the empire.\nI then quite assented to Oxenstiern's saying, _Nescis, mi fili, quam parva\nsapientia regitur mundus_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBurke was, indeed, a great man. No one ever read history so philosophically\nas he seems to have done. Yet, until he could associate his general\nprinciples with some sordid interest, panic of property, jacobinism, &c.,\nhe was a mere dinner bell. Hence you will find so many half truths in his\nspeeches and writings. Nevertheless, let us heartily acknowledge his\ntranscendant greatness. He would have been more influential if he had less\nsurpassed his contemporaries, as Fox and Pitt, men of much inferior minds\nin all respects.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs a telegraph supposes a correspondent telescope, so a scientific lecture\nrequires a scientific audience.\n\n\n\n_April _9. 1833.\n\nPROSPECT OF MONARCHY OR DEMOCRACY.--THE REFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\nI have a deep, though paradoxical, conviction that most of the European\nnations are more or less on their way, unconsciously indeed, to pure\nmonarchy; that is, to a government in which, under circumstances of\ncomplicated and subtle control, the reason of the people shall become\nefficient in the apparent will of the king.[1] As it seems to me, the wise\nand good in every country will, in all likelihood, become every day more\nand more disgusted with the representative form of government, brutalized\nas it is, and will be, by the predominance of democracy in England, France,\nand Belgium. The statesmen of antiquity, we know, doubted the possibility\nof the effective and permanent combination of the three elementary forms of\ngovernment; and, perhaps, they had more reason than we have been accustomed\nto think.\n\n[Footnote 1: This is backing Vico against Spinosa. It must, however, be\nacknowledged that at present the prophet of democracy has a good right to\nbe considered the favourite.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou see how this House of Commons has begun to verify all the ill\nprophecies that were made of it--low, vulgar, meddling with every thing,\nassuming universal competency, flattering every base passion, and sneering\nat every thing noble, refined, and truly national! The direct and personal\ndespotism will come on by and by, after the multitude shall have been\ngratified with the ruin and the spoil of the old institutions of the land.\nAs for the House of Lords, what is the use of ever so much fiery spirit, if\nthere be no principle to guide and to sanctify it?\n\n\n\n_April _10. 1833.\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA.--CAPTAIN B. HALL.--NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES.\n--DEMOCRACY WITH SLAVERY.--QUAKERS.\n\n\nThe possible destiny of the United States of America,--as a nation of a\nhundred millions of freemen,--stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific,\nliving under the laws of Alfred, and speaking the language of Shakspeare\nand Milton, is an august conception. Why should we not wish to see it\nrealized? America would then be England viewed through a solar microscope;\nGreat Britain in a state of glorious magnification! How deeply to be\nlamented is the spirit of hostility and sneering which some of the popular\nbooks of travels have shown in treating of the Americans! They hate us, no\ndoubt, just as brothers hate; but they respect the opinion of an Englishman\nconcerning themselves ten times as much as that of a native of any other\ncountry on earth. A very little humouring of their prejudices, and some\ncourtesy of language and demeanour on the part of Englishmen, would work\nwonders, even as it is, with the public mind of the Americans.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCaptain Basil Hall's book is certainly very entertaining and instructive;\nbut, in my judgment, his sentiments upon many points, and more especially\nhis mode of expression, are unwise and uncharitable. After all, are not\nmost of the things shown up with so much bitterness by him mere national\nfoibles, parallels to which every people has and must of necessity have?\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nWhat you say about the quarrel in the United States is sophistical. No\ndoubt, taxation may, and perhaps in some cases must, press unequally, or\napparently so, on different classes of people in a state. In such cases\nthere is a hardship; but, in the long run, the matter is fully compensated\nto the over-taxed class. For example, take the householders of London, who\ncomplain so bitterly of the house and window taxes. Is it not pretty clear\nthat, whether such householder be a tradesman, who indemnifies himself in\nthe price of his goods,--or a letter of lodgings, who does so in his rent,\n--or a stockholder, who receives it back again in his dividends,--or a\ncountry gentleman, who has saved so much fresh levy on his land or his\nother property,--one way or other, it comes at last pretty nearly to the\nsame thing, though the pressure for the time may be unjust and vexatious,\nand fit to be removed? But when New England, which may be considered a\nstate in itself, taxes the admission of foreign manufactures in order to\ncherish manufactures of its own, and thereby forces the Carolinians,\nanother state of itself, with which there is little intercommunion, which\nhas no such desire or interest to serve, to buy worse articles at a higher\nprice, it is altogether a different question, and is, in fact, downright\ntyranny of the worst, because of the most sordid, kind. What would you\nthink of a law which should tax every person in Devonshire for the\npecuniary benefit of every person in Yorkshire? And yet that is a feeble\nimage of the actual usurpation of the New England deputies over the\nproperty of the Southern States.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nThere are two possible modes of unity in a State; one by absolute\ncoordination of each to all, and of all to each; the other by\nsubordination of classes and offices. Now, I maintain that there never was\nan instance of the first, nor can there be, without slavery as its\ncondition and accompaniment, as in Athens. The poor Swiss cantons are no\nexception.\n\nThe mistake lies in confounding a state which must be based on classes and\ninterests and unequal property, with a church, which is founded on the\nperson, and has no qualification but personal merit. Such a community _may_\nexist, as in the case of the Quakers; but, in order to exist, it must be\ncompressed and hedged in by another society--_mundus mundulus in mundo\nimmundo_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe free class in a slave state is always, in one sense, the most patriotic\nclass of people in an empire; for their patriotism is not simply the\npatriotism of other people, but an aggregate of lust of power and\ndistinction and supremacy.\n\n\n\n_April _11. 1833.\n\nLAND AND MONEY.\n\n\nLand was the only species of property which, in the old time, carried any\nrespectability with it. Money alone, apart from some tenure of land, not\nonly did not make the possessor great and respectable, but actually made\nhim at once the object of plunder and hatred. Witness the history of the\nJews in this country in the early reigns after the Conquest.\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nI have no objection to your aspiring to the political principles of our old\nCavaliers; but embrace them all fully, and not merely this and that\nfeeling, whilst in other points you speak the canting foppery of the\nBenthamite or Malthusian schools.\n\n\n\n_April _14. 1833.\n\nMETHODS OF INVESTIGATION.\n\n\nThere are three ways of treating a subject:--\n\nIn the first mode, you begin with a definition, and that definition is\nnecessarily assumed as the truth. As the argument proceeds, the conclusion\nfrom the first proposition becomes the base of the second, and so on. Now,\nit is quite impossible that you can be sure that you have included all the\nnecessary, and none but the necessary, terms in your definition; as,\ntherefore, you proceed, the original speck of error is multiplied at every\nremove; the same infirmity of knowledge besetting each successive\ndefinition. Hence you may set out, like Spinosa, with all but the truth,\nand end with a conclusion which is altogether monstrous; and yet the mere\ndeduction shall be irrefragable. Warburton's \"Divine Legation\" is also a\nsplendid instance of this mode of discussion, and of its inability to lead\nto the truth: in fact, it is an attempt to adopt the mathematical series of\nproof, in forgetfulness that the mathematician is sure of the truth of his\ndefinition at each remove, because he _creates _it, as he can do, in pure\nfigure and number. But you cannot _make _any thing true which results from,\nor is connected with, real externals; you can only _find _it out. The chief\nuse of this first mode of discussion is to sharpen the wit, for which\npurpose it is the best exercitation.\n\n2. The historical mode is a very common one: in it the author professes to\nfind out the truth by collecting the facts of the case, and tracing them\ndownwards; but this mode is worse than the other. Suppose the question is\nas to the true essence and character of the English constitution. First,\nwhere will you begin your collection of facts? where will you end it? What\nfacts will you select, and how do you know that the class of facts which\nyou select are necessary terms in the premisses, and that other classes of\nfacts, which you neglect, are not necessary? And how do you distinguish\nphenomena which proceed from disease or accident from those which are the\ngenuine fruits of the essence of the constitution? What can be more\nstriking, in illustration of the utter inadequacy of this line of\ninvestigation for arriving at the real truth, than the political treatises\nand constitutional histories which we have in every library? A Whig proves\nhis case convincingly to the reader who knows nothing beyond his author;\nthen comes an old Tory (Carte, for instance), and ferrets up a hamperful of\nconflicting documents and notices, which proves _his _case _per contra_. A.\ntakes this class of facts; B. takes that class: each proves something true,\nneither proves _the_ truth, or any thing like _the _truth; that is, the\nwhole truth.\n\n3. You must, therefore, commence with the philosophic idea of the thing,\nthe true nature of which you wish to find out and manifest. You must carry\nyour rule ready made, if you wish to measure aright. If you ask me how I\ncan know that this idea--my own invention--is the truth, by which the\nphenomena of history are to be explained, I answer, in the same way exactly\nthat you know that your eyes were made to see with; and that is, because\nyou _do _see with them. If I propose to you an idea or self-realizing\ntheory of the constitution, which shall manifest itself as in existence\nfrom the earliest times to the present,--which shall comprehend within it\n_all _the facts which history has preserved, and shall give them a meaning\nas interchangeably causals or effects;--if I show you that such an event or\nreign was an obliquity to the right hand, and how produced, and such other\nevent or reign a deviation to the left, and whence originating,--that the\ngrowth was stopped here, accelerated there,--that such a tendency is, and\nalways has been, corroborative, and such other tendency destructive, of the\nmain progress of the idea towards realization;--if this idea, not only like\na kaleidoscope, shall reduce all the miscellaneous fragments into order,\nbut shall also minister strength, and knowledge, and light to the true\npatriot and statesmen for working out the bright thought, and bringing the\nglorious embryo to a perfect birth;--then, I think, I have a right to say\nthat the idea which led to this is not only true, but the truth, the only\ntruth. To set up for a statesman upon historical knowledge only, is as\nabout as wise as to set up for a musician by the purchase of some score\nflutes, fiddles, and horns. In order to make music, you must know how to\nplay; in order to make your facts speak truth, you must know what the truth\nis which _ought_ to be proved,--the ideal truth,--the truth which was\nconsciously or unconsciously, strongly or weakly, wisely or blindly,\nintended at all times.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI have preserved this passage, conscious, the while, how liable it is to be\nmisunderstood, or at least not understood. The readers of Mr. Coleridge's\nworks generally, or of his \"Church and State\" in particular, will have no\ndifficulty in entering into his meaning; namely, that no investigation in\nthe non-mathematical sciences can be carried on in a way deserving to be\ncalled philosophical, unless the investigator have in himself a mental\ninitiative, or, what comes to the same thing, unless he set out with an\nintuition of the ultimate aim or idea of the science or aggregation of\nfacts to be explained or interpreted. The analysis of the Platonic and\nBaconian methods in \"The Friend,\" to which I have before referred, and the\n\"Church and State,\" exhibit respectively a splendid vindication and example\nof Mr. Coleridge's mode of reasoning on this subject.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_April _18. 1833.\n\nCHURCH OF ROME.--CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.\n\n\nIn my judgment, Protestants lose a great deal of time in a false attack\nwhen they labour to convict the Romanists of false doctrines. Destroy the\n_Papacy_, and help the priests to wives, and I am much mistaken if the\ndoctrinal errors, such as there really are, would not very soon pass away.\nThey might remain _in terminis_, but they would lose their sting and body,\nand lapse back into figures of rhetoric and warm devotion, from which they,\nmost of them,--such as transubstantiation, and prayers for the dead and to\nsaints,--originally sprang. But, so long as the Bishop of Rome remains\nPope, and has an army of Mamelukes all over the world, we shall do very\nlittle by fulminating against mere doctrinal errors. In the Milanese, and\nelsewhere in the north of Italy, I am told there is a powerful feeling\nabroad against the Papacy. That district seems to be something in the state\nof England in the reign of our Henry the Eighth.\n\nHow deep a wound to morals and social purity has that accursed article of\nthe celibacy of the clergy been! Even the best and most enlightened men in\nRomanist countries attach a notion of impurity to the marriage of a\nclergyman. And can such a feeling be without its effect on the estimation\nof the wedded life in general? Impossible! and the morals of both sexes in\nSpain, Italy, France, &c. prove it abundantly.\n\nThe Papal church has had three phases,--anti-Caesarean, extra-national,\nanti-Christian.\n\n\n\n_April _20. 1833.\n\nROMAN CONQUEST OF ITALY.\n\n\nThe Romans would never have subdued the Italian tribes if they had not\nboldly left Italy and conquered foreign nations, and so, at last, crushed\ntheir next-door neighbours by external pressure.\n\n\n\n_April _24. 1833.\n\nWEDDED LOVE IN SHAKSPEARE AND HIS CONTEMPORARY DRAMATISTS.--TENNYSON'S\nPOEMS.\n\nExcept in Shakspeare, you can find no such thing as a pure conception of\nwedded love in our old dramatists. In Massinger, and Beaumont and Fletcher,\nit really is on both sides little better than sheer animal desire. There is\nscarcely a suitor in all their plays, whose _abilities_ are not discussed\nby the lady or her waiting-woman. In this, as in all things, how\ntranscendant over his age and his rivals was our sweet Shakspeare!\n\n       *     *     *     *     *\n\nI have not read through all Mr. Tennyson's poems, which have been sent to\nme; but I think there are some things of a good deal of beauty in what I\nhave seen. The misfortune is, that he has begun to write verses without\nvery well understanding what metre is. Even if you write in a known and\napproved metre, the odds are, if you are not a metrist yourself, that you\nwill not write harmonious verses; but to deal in new metres without\nconsidering what metre means and requires, is preposterous. What I would,\nwith many wishes for success, prescribe to Tennyson,--indeed without it he\ncan never be a poet in act,--is to write for the next two or three years in\nnone but one or two well-known and strictly defined metres, such as the\nheroic couplet, the octave stanza, or the octo-syllabic measure of the\nAllegro and Penseroso. He would, probably, thus get imbued with a\nsensation, if not a sense, of metre without knowing it, just as Eton boys\nget to write such good Latin verses by conning Ovid and Tibullus. As it is,\nI can scarcely scan some of his verses.\n\n\n_May _1. 1833.\n\nRABELAIS AND LUTHER.--WIT AND MADNESS.\n\n\nI think with some interest upon the fact that Rabelais and Luther were born\nin the same year.[1] Glorious spirits! glorious spirits!\n\n          ----\"Hos utinam inter\n  Heroas natum me!\"\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThey were both born within twelve months of each other, I believe; but\nLuther's birth was in November, 1484, and that of Rabelais is generally\nplaced at the end of the year preceding.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Great wits are sure to madness near allied,\"\n\nsays Dryden, and true so far as this, that genius of the highest kind\nimplies an unusual intensity of the modifying power, which detached from\nthe discriminative and reproductive power, might conjure a platted straw\ninto a royal diadem: but it would be at least as true, that great genius is\nmost alien from madness,--yea, divided from it by an impassable mountain,--\nnamely, the activity of thought and vivacity of the accumulative memory,\nwhich are no less essential constituents of \"great wit.\"\n\n\n\n_May _4. 1833.\n\nCOLONIZATION.--MACHINERY.--CAPITAL.\n\n\nColonization is not only a manifest expedient for, but an imperative duty\non, Great Britain. God seems to hold out his finger to us over the sea. But\nit must be a national colonization, such as was that of the Scotch to\nAmerica; a colonization of hope, and not such as we have alone encouraged\nand effected for the last fifty years, a colonization of despair.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe wonderful powers of machinery can, by multiplied production, render the\nmere _arte facta _of life actually cheaper: thus money and all other things\nbeing supposed the same in value, a silk gown is five times cheaper now\nthan in Queen Elizabeth's time; but machinery cannot cheapen, in any thing\nlike an equal degree, the immediate growths of nature or the immediate\nnecessaries of man. Now the _arte facta _are sought by the higher classes\nof society in a proportion incalculably beyond that in which they are\nsought by the lower classes; and therefore it is that the vast increase of\nmechanical powers has not cheapened life and pleasure to the poor as it has\ndone to the rich. In some respects, no doubt, it has done so, as in giving\ncotton dresses to maid-servants, and penny gin to all. A pretty benefit\ntruly!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think this country is now suffering grievously under an excessive\naccumulation of capital, which, having no field for profitable operation,\nis in a state of fierce civil war with itself.\n\n\n\n_May _6. 1833.\n\nROMAN CONQUEST.--CONSTANTINE.--PAPACY AND THE\nSCHOOLMEN.\n\n\nThe Romans had no national clerisy; their priesthood was entirely a matter\nof state, and, as far back as we can trace it, an evident stronghold of the\nPatricians against the increasing powers of the Plebeians. All we know of\nthe early Romans is, that, after an indefinite lapse of years, they had\nconquered some fifty or sixty miles round their city. Then it is that they\ngo to war with Carthage, the great maritime power, and the result of that\nwar was the occupation of Sicily. Thence they, in succession, conquered\nSpain, Macedonia, Asia Minor, &c., and so at last contrived to subjugate\nItaly, partly by a tremendous back blow, and partly by bribing the Italian\nStates with a communication of their privileges, which the now enormously\nenriched conquerors possessed over so large a portion of the civilized\nworld. They were ordained by Providence to conquer and amalgamate the\nmaterials of Christendom. They were not a national people; they\nwere truly--\n\n  _Romanos rerum dominos--_\n\n--and that's all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUnder Constantine the spiritual power became a complete reflex of the\ntemporal. There were four patriarchs, and four prefects, and so on. The\nClergy and the Lawyers, the Church and the State, were opposed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe beneficial influence of the Papacy upon the whole has been much over-\nrated by some writers; and certainly no country in Europe received less\nbenefit and more harm from it than England. In fact, the lawful kings and\nparliaments of England were always essentially Protestant in feeling for a\nnational church, though they adhered to the received doctrines of the\nChristianity of the day; and it was only the usurpers, John, Henry IV.,\n&c., that went against this policy. All the great English schoolmen, Scotus\nErigena[1], Duns Scotus, Ockham, and others, those morning stars of the\nReformation, were heart and soul opposed to Rome, and maintained the Papacy\nto be Antichrist. The Popes always persecuted, with rancorous hatred, the\nnational clerisies, the married clergy, and disliked the universities which\ngrew out of the old monasteries. The Papacy was, and is, essentially extra-\nnational, and was always so considered in this country, although not\nbelieved to be anti-Christian.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nJohn Scotus, or Erigena, was born, according to different authors, in\nWales, Scotland, or Ireland; but I do not find any account making him an\nEnglishman of Saxon blood. His death is uncertainly placed in the beginning\nof the ninth century. He lived in well-known intimacy with Charles the\nBald, of France, who died about A. D. 874. He resolutely resisted the\ndoctrine of transubstantiation, and was publicly accused of heresy on that\naccount. But the king of France protected him--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 8. 1833.\n\nCIVIL WAR OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.--HAMPDEN'S SPEECH.\n\n\nI know no portion of history which a man might write with so much pleasure\nas that of the great struggle in the time of Charles I., because he may\nfeel the profoundest respect for both parties. The side taken by any\nparticular person was determined by the point of view which such person\nhappened to command at the commencement of the inevitable collision, one\nline seeming straight to this man, another line to another. No man of that\nage saw _the_ truth, the whole truth; there was not light enough for that.\nThe consequence, of course, was a violent exaggeration of each party for\nthe time. The King became a martyr, and the Parliamentarians traitors, and\n_vice vers\u00e2_. The great reform brought into act by and under William the\nThird combined the principles truly contended for by Charles and his\nParliament respectively: the great revolution of 1831 has certainly, to an\nalmost ruinous degree, dislocated those principles of government again. As\nto Hampden's speech[1], no doubt it means a declaration of passive\nobedience to the sovereign, as the creed of an English Protestant\nindividual: every man, Cromwell and all, would have said as much; it was\nthe antipapistical tenet, and almost vauntingly asserted on all occasions\nby Protestants up to that time. But it implies nothing of Hampden's creed\nas to the duty of Parliament.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nOn his impeachment with the other four members, 1642. See the \"Letter to\nJohn Murray, Esq. _touching_ Lord Nugent,\" 1833. It is extraordinary that\nLord N. should not see the plain distinction taken by Hampden, between not\nobeying an unlawful command, and rebelling against the King because of it.\nHe approves the one, and condemns the other. His words are, \"to _yield\nobedience to_ the commands of a King, if against the true religion, against\nthe ancient and fundamental laws of the land, is another sign of an ill\nsubject:\"--\"To _resist_ the lawful power of the King; to raise insurrection\nagainst the King; admit him adverse in his religion; _to conspire against\nhis sacred person, or any ways to rebel, though commanding things against\nour consciences in exercising religion, or against the rights and\nprivileges of the subject_, is an absolute sign of the disaffected and\ntraitorous subject.\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 10. 1833.\n\nREFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\nWell, I think no honest man will deny that the prophetic denunciations of\nthose who seriously and solemnly opposed the Reform Bill are in a fair way\nof exact fulfilment! For myself, I own I did not expect such rapidity of\nmovement. I supposed that the first parliament would contain a large number\nof low factious men, who would vulgarize and degrade the debates of the\nHouse of Commons, and considerably impede public business, and that the\nmajority would be gentlemen more fond of their property than their\npolitics. But really the truth is something more than this. Think of\nupwards of 160 members voting away two millions and a half of tax on\nFriday[1], at the bidding of whom, shall I say? and then no less than 70 of\nthose very members rescinding their votes on the Tuesday next following,\nnothing whatever having intervened to justify the change, except that they\nhad found out that at least seven or eight millions more must go also upon\nthe same principle, and that the revenue was cut in two! Of course I\napprove the vote of rescission, however dangerous a precedent; but what a\npicture of the composition of this House of Commons!\n\n[Footnote 1:\nOn Friday, the 26th of April, 1833, Sir William Ingilby moved and carried a\nresolution for reducing the duty on malt from 28s. 8d. to l0s. per quarter.\nOne hundred and sixty-two members voted with him. On Tuesday following, the\n30th of April, seventy-six members only voted against the rescission of the\nsame resolution.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 13. 1833.\n\nFOOD.--MEDICINE.--POISON.--OBSTRUCTION.\n\n\n1. That which is digested wholly, and part of which is assimilated, and\npart rejected, is--Food.\n\n2. That which is digested wholly, and the whole of which is partly\nassimilated, and partly not, is--Medicine.\n\n3. That which is digested, but not assimilated, is--Poison.\n\n4. That which is neither digested nor assimilated is--Mere Obstruction.\n\nAs to the stories of slow poisons, I cannot say whether there was any, or\nwhat, truth in them; but I certainly believe a man may be poisoned by\narsenic a year after he has taken it. In fact, I think that is known to\nhave happened.\n\n\n\nMay 14. 1833.\n\nWILSON.--SHAKSPEARE'S SONNETS.--LOVE.\n\n\nProfessor Wilson's character of Charles Lamb in the last Blackwood,\n_Twaddle on Tweed-side_[1], is very sweet indeed, and gratified me much. It\ndoes honour to Wilson, to his head and his heart.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Charles Lamb ought really not to abuse Scotland in the pleasant way he so\noften does in the sylvan shades of Enfield; for Scotland loves Charles\nLamb; but he is wayward and wilful in his wisdom, and conceits that many a\nCockney is a better man even than Christopher North. But what will not\nChristopher forgive to genius and goodness! Even Lamb, bleating libels on\nhis native land. Nay, he learns lessons of humanity even from the mild\nmalice of Elia, and breathes a blessing on him and his household in their\nbower of rest.\"\n\nSome of Mr. Coleridge's poems were first published with some of C. Lamb's\nat Bristol in 1797. The remarkable words on the title-page have been aptly\ncited in the New Monthly Magazine for February, 1835, p. 198.: \"Duplex\nnobis vinculum, et amicitiae et similium junctarumque Camcoenarum,--quod\nutinam neque mors solvat, neque temporis longinquitas.\" And even so it came\nto pass after thirty seven years more had passed over their heads,--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow can I wish that Wilson should cease to write what so often soothes and\nsuspends my bodily miseries, and my mental conflicts! Yet what a waste,\nwhat a reckless spending, of talent, ay, and of genius, too, in his I know\nnot how many years' management of Blackwood! If Wilson cares for fame, for\nan enduring place and prominence in literature, he should now, I think,\nhold his hand, and say, as he well may,--\n\n    \"Militavi non sine gloria:\n      Nunc arma defunctumque bello\n        Barbiton hic paries habebit.\"\n\nTwo or three volumes collected out of the magazine by himself would be very\ndelightful. But he must not leave it for others to do; for some recasting\nand much condensation would be required; and literary executors make sad\nwork in general with their testators' brains.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI believe it possible that a man may, under certain states of the moral\nfeeling, entertain something deserving the name of love towards a male\nobject--an affection beyond friendship, and wholly aloof from appetite. In\nElizabeth's and James's time it seems to have been almost fashionable to\ncherish such a feeling; and perhaps we may account in some measure for it\nby considering how very inferior the women of that age, taken generally,\nwere in education and accomplishment of mind to the men. Of course there\nwere brilliant exceptions enough; but the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher--\nthe most popular dramatists that ever wrote for the English stage--will\nshow us what sort of women it was generally pleasing to represent.\nCertainly the language of the two friends, Musidorus and Pyrocles, in the\nArcadia, is such as we could not now use except to women; and in Cervantes\nthe same tone is sometimes adopted, as in the novel of the Curious\nImpertinent. And I think there is a passage in the New Atlantis[1] of Lord\nBacon, in which he speaks of the possibility of such a feeling, but hints\nthe extreme danger of entertaining it, or allowing it any place in a moral\ntheory. I mention this with reference to Shakspeare's sonnets, which have\nbeen supposed, by some, to be addressed to William Herbert, Earl of\nPembroke, whom Clarendon calls[2] the most beloved man of his age, though\nhis licentiousness was equal to his virtues.\n\nI doubt this. I do not think that Shakespeare, merely because he was an\nactor, would have thought it necessary to veil his emotions towards\nPembroke under a disguise, though he might probably have done so, if the\nreal object had perchance been a Laura or a Leonora. It seems to me that\nthe sonnets could only have come from a man deeply in love, and in love\nwith a woman; and there is one sonnet which, from its incongruity, I take\nto be a purposed blind. These extraordinary sonnets form, in fact, a poem\nof so many stanzas of fourteen lines each; and, like the passion which\ninspired them, the sonnets are always the same, with a variety of\nexpression,--continuous, if you regard the lover's soul,--distinct, if you\nlisten to him, as he heaves them sigh after sigh.\n\nThese sonnets, like the Venus and Adonis, and the Rape of Lucrece, are\ncharacterized by boundless fertility and laboured condensation of thought,\nwith perfection of sweetness in rhythm and metre. These are the essentials\nin the budding of a great poet. Afterwards habit and consciousness of power\nteach more ease--_praecipitandum liberum spiritum_.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI cannot fix upon any passage in this work, to which it can be supposed\nthat Mr. Coleridge alluded, unless it be the speech of Joabin the Jew; but\nit contains nothing coming up to the meaning in the text. The only approach\nto it seems to be:--\"As for masculine love, they have no touch of it; and\nyet there are not so faithful and inviolate friendships in the world again\nas are there; and to speak generally, as I said before, I have not read of\nany such chastity in any people as theirs.\"--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"William Earl of Pembroke was next, a man of another mould and making, and\nof another fame and reputation with all men, being the most universally\nbeloved and esteemed of any man of that age.\" .......\"He indulged to\nhimself the pleasures of all kinds, almost in all excesses.\"--_Hist. of the\nRebellion_, book i. He died in 1630, aged fifty years. The dedication by T.\nT. (Thomas Thorpe) is to \"the only begetter of these ensuing sonnets, Mr.\nW. H.\" and Malone is inclined to think that William Hughes is meant. As to\nMr. W. H. being the _only_ begetter of these sonnets, it must be observed,\nthat at least the last twenty-eight are beyond dispute addressed to a\nwoman. I suppose the twentieth sonnet was the particular one conceived by\nMr. C. to be a blind; but it seems to me that many others may be so\nconstrued, if we set out with a conviction that the real object of the poet\nwas a woman.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery one who has been in love, knows that the passion is strongest, and\nthe appetite weakest, in the absence of the beloved object, and that the\nreverse is the case in her presence.\n\n\n\n\n_May_ 15. 1833.\n\nWICLIFFE.--LUTHER.--REVERENCE FOR IDEAL TRUTHS.--JOHNSON THE WHIG.--\nASGILL.--JAMES I.\n\n\nWicliffe's genius was, perhaps, not equal to Luther's; but really the more\nI know of him from Vaughan and Le Bas, both of whose books I like, I think\nhim as extraordinary a man as Luther upon the whole. He was much sounder\nand more truly catholic in his view of the Eucharist than Luther. And I\nfind, not without some pleasure, that my own view of it, which I was\nafraid was original, was maintained in the tenth century, that is to say,\nthat the body broken had no reference to the human body of Christ, but to\nthe Caro Noumenon, or symbolical Body, the Rock that followed the\nIsraelites.\n\nWhitaker beautifully says of Luther;--_Felix ille, quem Dominus eo honore\ndignatus est, ut homines nequissimos suos haberet inimicos_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is now no reverence for any thing; and the reason is, that men\npossess conceptions only, and all their knowledge is conceptional only.\nNow as, to conceive, is a work of the mere understanding, and as all that\ncan be conceived may be comprehended, it is impossible that a man should\nreverence that, to which he must always feel something in himself\nsuperior. If it were possible to conceive God in a strict sense, that is,\nas we conceive a horse or a tree, even God himself could not excite any\nreverence, though he might excite fear or terror, or perhaps love, as a\ntiger or a beautiful woman. But reverence, which is the synthesis of love\nand fear, is only due from man, and, indeed, only excitable in man,\ntowards ideal truths, which are always mysteries to the understanding, for\nthe same reason that the motion of my finger behind my back is a mystery\nto you now--your eyes not being made for seeing through my body. It is\nthe reason only which has a sense by which ideas can be recognized, and\nfrom the fontal light of ideas only can a man draw intellectual power.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSamuel Johnson[1], whom, to distinguish him from the Doctor, we may call\nthe Whig, was a very remarkable writer. He may be compared to his\ncontemporary De Foe, whom he resembled in many points. He is another\ninstance of King William's discrimination, which was so much superior to\nthat of any of his ministers, Johnson was one of the most formidable\nadvocates for the Exclusion Bill, and he suffered by whipping and\nimprisonment under James accordingly. Like Asgill, he argues with great\napparent candour and clearness till he has his opponent within reach, and\nthen comes a blow as from a sledge-hammer. I do not know where I could put\nmy hand upon a book containing so much sense and sound constitutional\ndoctrine as this thin folio of Johnson's Works; and what party in this\ncountry would read so severe a lecture in it as our modern Whigs!\n\nA close reasoner and a good writer in general may be known by his pertinent\nuse of connectives. Read that page of Johnson; you cannot alter one\nconjunction without spoiling the sense. It is a linked strain throughout.\nIn your modern books, for the most part, the sentences in a page have the\nsame connection with each other that marbles have in a bag; they touch\nwithout adhering.\n\nAsgill evidently formed his style upon Johnson's, but he only imitates one\npart of it. Asgill never rises to Johnson's eloquence. The latter was a\nsort of Cobbett-Burke.\n\nJames the First thought that, because all power in the state seemed to\nproceed _from_ the crown, all power therefore remained in the crown;--as\nif, because the tree sprang from the seed, the stem, branches, leaves, and\nfruit were all contained in the seed. The constitutional doctrine as to the\nrelation which the king bears to the other components of the state is in\ntwo words this:--He is a representative of the whole of that, of which he\nis himself a part.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nDryden's Ben Jochanan, in the second part of Absalom and Achitophel. He was\nborn in 1649, and died in 1703. He was a clergyman. In 1686, when the army\nwas encamped on Hounslow Heath, he published \"A humble and hearty Address\nto all English Protestants in the present Army.\" For this he was tried and\nsentenced to be pilloried in three places, pay a fine, and be whipped from\nNewgate to Tyburn. An attempt was also made to degrade him from his orders,\nbut this failed through an informality. After the Revolution he was\npreferred.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 17. 1833.\n\nSIR P. SIDNEY.--THINGS ARE FINDING THEIR LEVEL.\n\n\nWhen Sir Philip Sidney saw the enthusiasm which agitated every man, woman,\nand child in the Netherlands against Philip and D'Alva, he told Queen\nElizabeth that it was the spirit of God, and that it was invincible. What\nis the spirit which seems to move and unsettle every other man in England\nand on the Continent at this time? Upon my conscience, and judging by St.\nJohn's rule, I think it is a special spirit of the devil--and a very vulgar\ndevil too!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYour modern political economists say that it is a principle in their\nscience--that all things _find_ their level;--which I deny; and say, on\nthe contrary, that the true principle is, that all things are _finding_\ntheir level like water in a storm.\n\n\n\n_May_ 18. 1833.\n\n\nGERMAN.--GOETHE.--GOD'S PROVIDENCE.--MAN'S FREEDOM.\n\nGerman is inferior to English in modifications of expression of the\naffections, but superior to it in modifications of expression of all\nobjects of the senses.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGoethe's small lyrics are delightful. He showed good taste in not\nattempting to imitate Shakspeare's Witches, which are threefold,--Fates,\nFuries, and earthly Hags o' the caldron.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMan does not move in cycles, though nature does. Man's course is like that\nof an arrow; for the portion of the great cometary ellipse which he\noccupies is no more than a needle's length to a mile.\n\nIn natural history, God's freedom is shown in the law of necessity. In\nmoral history, God's necessity or providence is shown in man's freedom.\n\n\n\n_June_ 8. 1833.\n\nDOM MIGUEL AND DOM PEDRO.--WORKING TO BETTER ONE'S CONDITION.--NEGRO\nEMANCIPATION.--FOX AND PITT.--REVOLUTION.\n\n\nThere can be no doubt of the gross violations of strict neutrality by this\ngovernment in the Portuguese affair; but I wish the Tories had left the\nmatter alone, and not given room to the people to associate them with that\nscoundrel Dom Miguel. You can never interest the common herd in the\nabstract question; with them it is a mere quarrel between the men; and\nthough Pedro is a very doubtful character, he is not so bad as his brother;\nand, besides, we are naturally interested for the girl.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is very strange that men who make light of the direct doctrines of the\nScriptures, and turn up their noses at the recommendation of a line of\nconduct suggested by religious truth, will nevertheless stake the\ntranquillity of an empire, the lives and properties of millions of men and\nwomen, on the faith of a maxim of modern political economy! And this, too,\nof a maxim true only, if at all, of England or a part of England, or some\nother country;--namely, that the desire of bettering their condition will\ninduce men to labour even more abundantly and profitably than servile\ncompulsion,--to which maxim the past history and present state of all Asia\nand Africa give the lie. Nay, even in England at this day, every man in\nManchester, Birmingham, and in other great manufacturing towns, knows that\nthe most skilful artisans, who may earn high wages at pleasure, are\nconstantly in the habit of working but a few days in the week, and of\nidling the rest. I believe St.\n\nMonday is very well kept by the workmen in London. The love of indolence is\nuniversal, or next to it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMust not the ministerial plan for the West Indies lead necessarily to a\nchange of property, either by force or dereliction? I can't see any way of\nescaping it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou are always talking of the _rights_ of the negroes. As a rhetorical mode\nof stimulating the people of England _here_, I do not object; but I utterly\ncondemn your frantic practice of declaiming about their rights to the\nblacks themselves. They ought to be forcibly reminded of the state in which\ntheir brethren in Africa still are, and taught to be thankful for the\nprovidence which has placed them within reach of the means of grace. I know\nno right except such as flows from righteousness; and as every Christian\nbelieves his righteousness to be imputed, so must his right be an imputed\nright too. It must flow out of a duty, and it is under that name that the\nprocess of humanization ought to begin and to be conducted throughout.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThirty years ago, and more, Pitt availed himself, with great political\ndexterity, of the apprehension, which Burke and the conduct of some of the\nclubs in London had excited, and endeavoured to inspire into the nation a\npanic of property. Fox, instead of exposing the absurdity of this by\nshowing the real numbers and contemptible weakness of the disaffected, fell\ninto Pitt's trap, and was mad enough to exaggerate even Pitt's surmises.\nThe consequence was, a very general apprehension throughout the country of\nan impending revolution, at a time when, I will venture to say, the people\nwere more heart-whole than they had been for a hundred years previously.\nAfter I had travelled in Sicily and Italy, countries where there were real\ngrounds for fear, I became deeply impressed with the difference. Now, after\na long continuance of high national glory and influence, when a revolution\nof a most searching and general character is actually at work, and the old\ninstitutions of the country are all awaiting their certain destruction or\nviolent modification--the people at large are perfectly secure, sleeping or\ngambolling on the very brink of a volcano.\n\n\n\n_June_ 15. 1833.\n\nVIRTUE AND LIBERTY.--EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.--ERASMUS.----LUTHER.\n\n\nThe necessity for external government to man is in an inverse ratio to the\nvigour of his self-government. Where the last is most complete, the first\nis least wanted. Hence, the more virtue the more liberty.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans the most profound work in\nexistence; and I hardly believe that the writings of the old Stoics, now\nlost, could have been deeper. Undoubtedly it is, and must be, very obscure\nto ordinary readers; but some of the difficulty is accidental, arising from\nthe form in which the Epistle appears. If we could now arrange this work in\nthe way in which we may be sure St. Paul would himself do, were he now\nalive, and preparing it for the press, his reasoning would stand out\nclearer. His accumulated parentheses would be thrown into notes, or\nextruded to the margin. You will smile, after this, if I say that I think I\nunderstand St. Paul; and I think so, because, really and truly, I recognize\na cogent consecutiveness in the argument--the only evidence I know that you\nunderstand any book. How different is the style of this intensely\npassionate argument from that of the catholic circular charge called the\nEpistle to the Ephesians!--and how different that of both from the style of\nthe Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which I venture to call [Greek:\nepistolal panloeideiz]\n\nErasmus's paraphrase of the New Testament is clear and explanatory; but you\ncannot expect any thing very deep from Erasmus. The only fit commentator on\nPaul was Luther--not by any means such a gentleman as the Apostle, but\nalmost as great a genius.\n\n\n\n\n_June_ 17. 1833.\n\nNEGRO EMANCIPATION.\n\n\nHave you been able to discover any principle in this Emancipation Bill for\nthe Slaves, except a principle of fear of the abolition party struggling\nwith a dread of causing some monstrous calamity to the empire at large?\nWell! I will not prophesy; and God grant that this tremendous and\nunprecedented act of positive enactment may not do the harm to the cause of\nhumanity and freedom which I cannot but fear! But yet, what can be hoped,\nwhen all human wisdom and counsel are set at nought, and religious faith--\nthe only miraculous agent amongst men--is not invoked or regarded! and that\nmost unblest phrase--the Dissenting _interest_--enters into the question!\n\n\n\n_June_ 22. 1833.\n\n\nHACKET'S LIFE OF ARCHBISHOP WILLIAMS.--CHARLES I.--MANNERS UNDER EDWARD\nIII., RICHARD II., AND HENRY VIII.\n\n\nWhat a delightful and instructive hook Bishop Hacket's Life of Archbishop\nWilliams is! You learn more from it of that which is valuable towards an\ninsight into the times preceding the Civil War than from all the ponderous\nhistories and memoirs now composed about that period.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCharles seems to have been a very disagreeable personage during James's\nlife. There is nothing dutiful in his demeanour.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think the spirit of the court and nobility of Edward III. and Richard II.\nwas less gross than that in the time of Henry VIII.; for in this latter\nperiod the chivalry had evaporated, and the whole coarseness was left by\nitself. Chaucer represents a very high and romantic style of society\namongst the gentry.\n\n\n\n_June_ 29. 1833.\n\nHYPOTHESIS.--SUFFICTION.--THEORY.--LYELL'S GEOLOGY.--GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.\n--GERARD DOUW's \"SCHOOLMASTER\" AND TITIAN'S \"VENUS.\"--SIR J. SCARLETT.\n\nIt seems to me a great delusion to call or suppose the imagination of a\nsubtle fluid, or molecules penetrable with the same, a legitimate\nhypothesis. It is a mere _suffiction_. Newton took the fact of bodies\nfalling to the centre, and upon that built up a legitimate hypothesis. It\nwas a subposition of something certain. But Descartes' vortices were not an\nhypothesis; they rested on no fact at all; and yet they did, in a clumsy\nway, explain the motions of the heavenly bodies. But your subtle fluid is\npure gratuitous assumption; and for what use? It explains nothing.\n\nBesides, you are endeavouring to deduce power from mass, in which you\nexpressly say there is no power but the _vis inertiae_: whereas, the whole\nanalogy of chemistry proves that power produces mass.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe use of a theory in the real sciences is to help the investigator to a\ncomplete view of all the hitherto discovered facts relating to the science\nin question; it is a collected view, [Greek: the_orhia], of all he yet\nknows in _one_. Of course, whilst any pertinent facts remain unknown, no\ntheory can be exactly true, because every new fact must necessarily, to a\ngreater or less degree, displace the relation of all the others. A theory,\ntherefore, only helps investigation; it cannot invent or discover. The only\ntrue theories are those of geometry, because in geometry all the premisses\nare true and unalterable. But, to suppose that, in our present exceedingly\nimperfect acquaintance with the facts, any theory in chemistry or geology\nis altogether accurate, is absurd:--it cannot be true.\n\nMr. Lyell's system of geology is just half the truth, and no more. He\naffirms a great deal that is true, and he denies a great deal which is\nequally true; which is the general characteristic of all systems not\nembracing the whole truth. So it is with the rectilinearity or undulatory\nmotion of light;--I believe both; though philosophy has as yet but\nimperfectly ascertained the conditions of their alternate existence, or the\nlaws by which they are regulated.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThose who deny light to be matter do not, therefore, deny its corporeity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe principle of the Gothic architecture is infinity made imaginable. It is\nno doubt a sublimer effort of genius than the Greek style; but then it\ndepends much more on execution for its effect. I was more than ever\nimpressed with the marvellous sublimity and transcendant beauty of King's\nCollege Chapel.[1] It is quite unparalleled.\n\nI think Gerard Douw's \"Schoolmaster,\" in the Fitzwilliam Museum, the finest\nthing of the sort I ever saw;--whether you look at it at the common\ndistance, or examine it with a glass, the wonder is equal. And that\nglorious picture of the Venus--so perfectly beautiful and perfectly\ninnocent--as if beauty and innocence could not be dissociated! The French\nthing below is a curious instance of the inherent grossness of the French\ntaste. Titian's picture is made quite bestial.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge visited Cambridge upon the occasion of the scientific meeting\nthere in June, 1833.--\"My emotions,\" he said, \"at revisiting the university\nwere at first, overwhelming. I could not speak for an hour; yet my feelings\nwere upon the whole very pleasurable, and I have not passed, of late years\nat least, three days of such great enjoyment and healthful excitement of\nmind and body. The bed on which I slept--and slept soundly too--was, as\nnear as I can describe it, a couple of sacks full of potatoes tied\ntogether. I understand the young men think it hardens them. Truly I lay\ndown at night a man, and arose in the morning a bruise.\" He told me \"that\nthe men were much amused at his saying that the fine old Quaker philosopher\nDalton's face was like All Souls' College.\" The two persons of whom he\nspoke with the greatest interest were Mr. Faraday and Mr. Thirlwall; saying\nof the former, \"that he seemed to have the true temperament of genius, that\ncarrying-on of the spring and freshness of youthful, nay, boyish feelings,\ninto the matured strength of manhood!\" For, as Mr. Coleridge had long\nbefore expressed the same thought,--\"To find no contradiction in the union\nof old and new; to contemplate the Ancient of Days and all his works with\nfeelings as fresh as if all had then sprung forth at the first creative\nfiat, this characterizes the mind that feels the riddle of the world, and\nmay help to unravel it. To carry on the feelings of childhood into the\npowers of manhood; to combine the child's sense of wonder and novelty with\nthe appearances which everyday for perhaps forty years had rendered\nfamiliar;\n\n  'With sun and moon and stars throughout the year,\n  And man and woman;'--\n\nthis is the character and privilege of genius, and one of the marks which\ndistinguish genius from talent. And therefore is it the prime merit of\ngenius, and its most unequivocal mode of manifestation, so to represent\nfamiliar objects as to awaken in the minds of others a kindred feeling\nconcerning them, and that freshness of sensation which is the constant\naccompaniment of mental, no less than of bodily, convalescence. Who has not\na thousand times seen snow fall on water? Who has not watched it with a new\nfeeling, from the time that he has read Burns's comparison of sensual\npleasure\n\n  'To snow that falls upon a river,\n  A moment white--then gone for ever!'\"\n\n_Biog. Lit_. vol. i, p. 85.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think Sir James Scarlett's speech for the defendant, in the late action\nof Cobbett v. The Times, for a libel, worthy of the best ages of Greece or\nRome; though, to be sure, some of his remarks could not have been very\npalatable to his clients.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI am glad you came in to punctuate my discourse, which I fear has gone on\nfor an hour without any stop at all.\n\n\n\n_July_ 1. 1833.\n\n\nMANDEVILLE'S FABLE OF THE BEES.--BESTIAL THEORY.--CHARACTER OF BERTRAM.--\nBEAUMONT AND FLETCHER'S DRAMAS.--\u00c6SCHYLUS, SOPHOCLES, EURIPIDES,--MILTON.\n\nIf I could ever believe that Mandeville really meant any thing more by his\nFable of the Bees than a _bonne bouche_ of solemn raillery, I should like\nto ask those man-shaped apes who have taken up his suggestions in earnest,\nand seriously maintained them as bases for a rational account of man and\nthe world--how they explain the very existence of those dexterous cheats,\nthose superior charlatans, the legislators and philosophers, who have known\nhow to play so well upon the peacock-like vanity and follies of their\nfellow mortals.\n\nBy the by, I wonder some of you lawyers (_sub rosa_, of course) have not\nquoted the pithy lines in Mandeville upon this registration question:--\n\n    \"The lawyers, of whose art the basis\n    Was raising feuds and splitting cases,\n    _Oppos'd all Registers_, that cheats\n    Might make more work with dipt estates;\n    As 'twere unlawful that one's own\n    Without a lawsuit should be known!\n    They put off hearings wilfully,\n    To finger the refreshing fee;\n    And to defend a wicked cause\n    Examined and survey'd the laws,\n    As burglars shops and houses do,\n    To see where best they may break through.\"\n\nThere is great Hudibrastic vigour in these lines; and those on the doctors\nare also very terse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLook at that head of Cline, by Chantrey! Is that forehead, that nose, those\ntemples and that chin, akin to the monkey tribe? No, no. To a man of\nsensibility no argument could disprove the bestial theory so convincingly\nas a quiet contemplation of that fine bust.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot agree with the solemn abuse which the critics have poured out upon\nBertram in \"All's Well that ends Well.\" He was a young nobleman in feudal\ntimes, just bursting into manhood, with all the feelings of pride of birth\nand appetite for pleasure and liberty natural to such a character so\ncircumstanced. Of course he had never regarded Helena otherwise than as a\ndependant in the family; and of all that which she possessed of goodness\nand fidelity and courage, which might atone for her inferiority in other\nrespects, Bertram was necessarily in a great measure ignorant. And after\nall, her _prima facie_ merit was the having inherited a prescription from\nher old father the doctor, by which she cures the king,--a merit, which\nsupposes an extravagance of personal loyalty in Bertram to make conclusive\nto him in such a matter as that of taking a wife. Bertram had surely good\nreason to look upon the king's forcing him to marry Helena as a very\ntyrannical act. Indeed, it must be confessed that her character is not very\ndelicate, and it required all Shakspeare's consummate skill to interest us\nfor her; and he does this chiefly by the operation of the other\ncharacters,--the Countess, Lafeu, &c. We get to like Helena from their\npraising and commending her so much.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn Beaumont and Fletcher's tragedies the comic scenes are rarely so\ninterfused amidst the tragic as to produce a unity of the tragic on the\nwhole, without which the intermixture is a fault. In Shakspeare, this is\nalways managed with transcendant skill. The Fool in Lear contributes in a\nvery sensible manner to the tragic wildness of the whole drama. Beaumont\nand Fletcher's serious plays or tragedies are complete hybrids,--neither\nfish nor flesh,--upon any rules, Greek, Roman, or Gothic: and yet they are\nvery delightful notwithstanding. No doubt, they imitate the ease of\ngentlemanly conversation better than Shakspeare, who was unable _not_ to be\ntoo much associated to succeed perfectly in this.\n\nWhen I was a boy, I was fondest of \u00c6schylus; in youth and middle age I\npreferred Euripides; now in my declining years I admire Sophocles. I can\nnow at length see that Sophocles is the most perfect. Yet he never rises to\nthe sublime simplicity of \u00c6schylus--simplicity of design, I mean--nor\ndiffuses himself in the passionate outpourings of Euripides. I understand\nwhy the ancients called Euripides the most tragic of their dramatists: he\nevidently embraces within the scope of the tragic poet many passions,--\nlove, conjugal affection, jealousy, and so on, which Sophocles seems to\nhave considered as incongruous with the ideal statuesqueness of the tragic\ndrama. Certainly Euripides was a greater poet in the abstract than\nSophocles. His choruses may be faulty as choruses, but how beautiful and\naffecting they are as odes and songs! I think the famous [Greek: Euippoy\nXene], in Oedipus Coloneus[1] cold in comparison with many of the odes of\nEuripides, as that song of the chorus in the Hippolytus--[Greek: \"Eoos,\"\nEoos[2]] and so on; and I remember a choric ode in the Hecuba, which always\nstruck me as exquisitely rich and finished; I mean, where the chorus speaks\nof Troy and the night of the capture.[3]\n\nThere is nothing very surprising in Milton's preference of Euripides,\nthough so unlike himself. It is very common--very natural--for men to\n_like_ and even admire an exhibition of power very different in kind from\nany thing of their own. No jealousy arises. Milton preferred Ovid too, and\nI dare say he admired both as a man of sensibility admires a lovely woman,\nwith a feeling into which jealousy or envy cannot enter. With Aeschylus or\nSophocles he might perchance have matched himself.\n\nIn Euripides you have oftentimes a very near approach to comedy, and I\nhardly know any writer in whom you can find such fine models of serious and\ndignified conversation.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nGreek:\n  Eu\u00edppoy, X\u00e9ge, tmsde chosas\n  Tchoy t\u00e0 chz\u00e1tista g\u00e3s esaula\n  tdn \u00e0xgaeta Kolan\u00f3n'--ch. t. l.  v. 668]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nGreek:\n \"Exos\" Exos, \u00f3 chat' \u00f4mm\u00e1tton\n  s t\u00e1zeos p\u00f3thon eisagog glyche\u00efan\n  Psuch\u00e4 ch\u00e1riu o\u00fbs \u00e8pithtzate\u00fasei\n  mae moi tot\u00e8 s\u00e8n chach\u00f5 phaneiaes\n    mae\u00f4 \u00e3rruthmos \u00eblthois--x.t.l v.527]\n\n[Footnote 3:\nI take it for granted that Mr. Coleridge alluded to the chorus,--\n\n[Greek: Su men, _o patrhis Ilias\nt_on aporhth_et_on polis\nouketi lexei toion El-\nlan_on nephos amphi se krhuptei,\ndorhi d_e, dorhi perhsan--k. t. l.] v. 899.\n\nThou, then, oh, natal Troy! no more\nThe city of the unsack'd shalt be,\nSo thick from dark Achaia's shore\nThe cloud of war hath covered thee.\n    Ah! not again\n    I tread thy plain--\nThe spear--the spear hath rent thy pride;\nThe flame hath scarr'd thee deep and wide;\nThy coronal of towers is shorn,\nAnd thou most piteous art--most naked and forlorn!\n\n  I perish'd at the noon of night!\nWhen sleep had seal'd each weary eye;\n    When the dance was o'er,\n    And harps no more\nRang out in choral minstrelsy.\n  In the dear bower of delight\n    My husband slept in joy;\n      His shield and spear\n      Suspended near,\nSecure he slept: that sailor band\nFull sure he deem'd no more should stand\n    Beneath the walls of Troy.\n  And I too, by the taper's light,\n    Which in the golden mirror's haze\n    Flash'd its interminable rays,\n  Bound up the tresses of my hair,\n  That I Love's peaceful sleep might share.\n\nI slept; but, hark! that war-shout dread,\nWhich rolling through the city spread;\nAnd this the cry,--\"When, Sons of Greece,\nWhen shall the lingering leaguer cease;\nWhen will ye spoil Troy's watch-tower high,\nAnd home return?\"--I heard the cry,\nAnd, starting from the genial bed,\nVeiled, as a Doric maid, I fled,\nAnd knelt, Diana, at thy holy fane,\nA trembling suppliant--all in vain.]\n\n\n\nJULY 3. 1833.\n\nSTYLE.--CAVALIER SLANG.--JUNTOS.--PROSE AND VERSE.--IMITATION AND COPY.\n\n\nThe collocation of words is so artificial in Shakspeare and Milton, that\nyou may as well think of pushing a[1] brick out of a wall with your\nforefinger, as attempt to remove a word out of any of their finished\npassages.[2]\n\nA good lecture upon style might he composed, by taking on the one hand the\nslang of L'Estrange, and perhaps, even of Roger North,[3] which became so\nfashionable after the Restoration as a mark of loyalty; and on the other,\nthe Johnsonian magniloquence or the balanced metre of Junius; and then\nshowing how each extreme is faulty, upon different grounds.\n\nIt is quite curious to remark the prevalence of the Cavalier slang style in\nthe divines of Charles the Second's time. Barrow could not of course adopt\nsuch a mode of writing throughout, because he could not in it have\ncommunicated his elaborate thinkings and lofty rhetoric; but even Barrow\nnot unfrequently lets slip a phrase here and there in the regular Roger\nNorth way--much to the delight, no doubt, of the largest part of his\naudience and contemporary readers. See particularly, for instances of this,\nhis work on the Pope's supremacy. South is full of it.\n\nThe style of Junius is a sort of metre, the law of which is a balance of\nthesis and antithesis. When he gets out of this aphorismic metre into a\nsentence of five or six lines long, nothing can exceed the slovenliness of\nthe English. Horne Tooke and a long sentence seem the only two antagonists\nthat were too much for him. Still the antithesis of Junius is a real\nantithesis of images or thought; but the antithesis of Johnson is rarely\nmore than verbal.\n\nThe definition of good prose is--proper words in their proper places;--of\ngood verse--the most proper words in their proper places. The propriety is\nin either case relative. The words in prose ought to express the intended\nmeaning, and no more; if they attract attention to themselves, it is, in\ngeneral, a fault. In the very best styles, as Southey's, you read page\nafter page, understanding the author perfectly, without once taking notice\nof the medium of communication;--it is as if he had been speaking to you\nall the while. But in verse you must do more;--there the words, the\n_media_, must be beautiful, and ought to attract your notice--yet not so\nmuch and so perpetually as to destroy the unity which ought to result from\nthe whole poem. This is the general rule, but, of course, subject to some\nmodifications, according to the different kinds of prose or verse. Some\nprose may approach towards verse, as oratory, and therefore a more studied\nexhibition of the _media_ may be proper; and some verse may border more on\nmere narrative, and there the style should be simpler. But the great thing\nin poetry is, _quocunque modo_, to effect a unity of impression upon the\nwhole; and a too great fulness and profusion of point in the parts will\nprevent this. Who can read with pleasure more than a hundred lines or so of\nHudibras at one time? Each couplet or quatrain is so whole in itself, that\nyou can't connect them. There is no fusion,--just as it is in Seneca.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\n  They led me to the sounding shore--\n    Heavens! as I passed the crowded way,\n    My bleeding lord before me lay--\n  I saw--I saw--and wept no more,\n  Till, as the homeward breezes bore\n  The bark returning o'er the sea,\n  My gaze, oh Ilion, turn'd on thee!\n  Then, frantic, to the midnight air,\n  I cursed aloud the adulterous pair:--\n  \"They plunge me deep in exile's woe;\n  They lay my country low:\n    Their love--no love! but some dark spell,\n    In vengeance breath'd, by spirit fell.\n  Rise, hoary sea, in awful tide,\n  And whelm that vessel's guilty pride;\n  Nor e'er, in high Mycene's hall,\n  Let Helen boast in peace of mighty Ilion's fall.\"\n\nThe translation was given to me by Mr. Justice Coleridge.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n\"The amotion or transposition will alter the thought, or the feeling, or at\nleast the tone. They are as pieces of mosaic work, from which you cannot\nstrike the smallest block without making a hole in the picture.\"--\n_Quarterly Review_, No. CIII. p. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\nBut Mr. Coleridge took a great distinction between North and the other\nwriters commonly associated with him. In speaking of the Examen and the\nLife of Lord North, in the Friend, Mr. C. calls them \"two of the most\ninteresting biographical works in our language, both for the weight of the\nmatter, and the _incuriosa felicitas_ of the style. The pages are all alive\nwith the genuine idioms of our mother tongue. A fastidious taste, it is\ntrue, will find offence in the occasional vulgarisms, or what we now call\n_slang_, which not a few of our writers, shortly after the Restoration of\nCharles the Second, seem to have affected as a mark of loyalty. These\ninstances, however, are but a trifling drawback. They are not _sought for_,\nas is too often and too plainly done by L'Estrange, Collyer, Tom Brown, and\ntheir imitators. North never goes out of his way, either to seek them, or\nto avoid them; and, in the main, his language gives us the very nerve,\npulse, and sinew of a hearty, healthy, conversational _English_.\"--Vol. ii.\np. 307.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nImitation is the mesothesis of likeness and difference. The difference is\nas essential to it as the likeness; for without the difference, it would be\ncopy or facsimile. But to borrow a term from astronomy, it is a librating\nmesothesis: for it may verge more to likeness as in painting, or more to\ndifference, as in sculpture.\n\n\n\nJULY 4. 1833.\n\nDR. JOHNSON.--BOSWELL.--BURKE.--NEWTON.--MILTON.\n\nDr. Johnson's fame now rests principally upon Boswell. It is impossible not\nto be amused with such a book. But his _bow-wow_ manner must have had a\ngood deal to do with the effect produced;--for no one, I suppose, will set\nJohnson before Burke,--and Burke was a great and universal talker;--yet now\nwe hear nothing of this except by some chance remarks in Boswell. The fact\nis, Burke, like all men of genius who love to talk at all, was very\ndiscursive and continuous; hence he is not reported; he seldom said the\nsharp short things that Johnson almost always did, which produce a more\ndecided effect at the moment, and which are so much more easy to carry\noff.[1] Besides, as to Burke's testimony to Johnson's powers, you must\nremember that Burke was a great courtier; and after all, Burke said and\nwrote more than once that he thought Johnson greater in talking than\nwriting, and greater in Boswell than in real life.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nBurke, I am persuaded, was not so continuous a talker as Coleridge. Madame\nde Stael told a nephew of the latter, at Coppet, that Mr. C. was a master\nof monologue, _mais qu'il ne savait pas le dialogue_. There was a spice of\nvindictiveness in this, the exact history of which is not worth explaining.\nAnd if dialogue must be cut down in its meaning to small talk, I, for one,\nwill admit that Coleridge, amongst his numberless qualifications, possessed\nit not. But I am sure that he could, when it suited him, converse as well\nas any one else, and with women he frequently did converse in a very\nwinning and popular style, confining them, however, as well as he could, to\nthe detail of facts or of their spontaneous emotions. In general, it was\ncertainly otherwise. \"You must not be surprised,\" he said to me, \"at my\ntalking so long to you--I pass so much of my time in pain and solitude, yet\neverlastingly thinking, that, when you or any other persons call on me, I\ncan hardly help easing my mind by pouring forth some of the accumulated\nmass of reflection and feeling, upon an apparently interested recipient.\"\nBut the principal reason, no doubt, was the habit of his intellect, which\nwas under a law of discoursing upon all subjects with reference to ideas or\nultimate ends. You might interrupt him when you pleased, and he was patient\nof every sort of conversation except mere personality, which he absolutely\nhated.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nThis was said, I believe, to the late Sir James Mackintosh.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNewton _was_ a great man, but you must excuse me if I think that it would\ntake many Newtons to make one Milton.\n\n\n\n_July_ 6. 1833.\n\nPAINTING.----MUSIC.----POETRY.\n\n\nIt is a poor compliment to pay to a painter to tell him that his figure\nstands out of the canvass, or that you start at the likeness of the\nportrait. Take almost any daub, cut it out of the canvass, and place the\nfigure looking into or out of a window, and any one may take it for life.\nOr take one of Mrs. Salmon's wax queens or generals, and you will very\nsensibly feel the difference between a copy, as they are, and an imitation,\nof the human form, as a good portrait ought to be. Look at that flower vase\nof Van Huysum, and at these wax or stone peaches and apricots! The last are\nlikest to their original, but what pleasure do they give? None, except to\nchildren.[1]\n\nSome music is above me; most music is beneath me. I like Beethoven and\nMozart--or else some of the a\u00ebrial compositions of the elder Italians, as\nPalestrina[2] and Carissimi.--And I love Purcell.\n\nThe best sort of music is what it should be--sacred; the next best, the\nmilitary, has fallen to the lot of the Devil.\n\nGood music never tires me, nor sends me to sleep. I feel physically\nrefreshed and strengthened by it, as Milton says he did.\n\nI could write as good verses now as ever I did, if I were perfectly free\nfrom vexations, and were in the _ad libitum_ hearing of fine music, which\nhas a sensible effect in harmonizing my thoughts, and in animating and, as\nit were, lubricating my inventive faculty. The reason of my not finishing\nChristabel is not, that I don't know how to do it--for I have, as I always\nhad, the whole plan entire from beginning to end in my mind; but I fear I\ncould not carry on with equal success the execution of the idea, an\nextremely subtle and difficult one.\n\nBesides, after this continuation of Faust, which they tell me is very poor,\nwho can have courage to attempt[3] a reversal of the judgment of all\ncriticism against continuations? Let us except Don Quixote, however,\nalthough the second part of that transcendant work is not exactly _uno\nflatu_ with the original conception.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis passage, and those following, will evidence, what the readers even of\nthis little work must have seen, that Mr. Coleridge had an eye, almost\nexclusively, for the ideal or universal in painting and music. He knew\nnothing of the details of handling in the one, or of rules of composition\nin the other. Yet he was, to the best of my knowledge, an unerring judge of\nthe merits of any serious effort in the fine arts, and detected the leading\nthought or feeling of the artist, with a decision which used sometimes to\nastonish me. Every picture which I have looked at in company with him,\nseems now, to my mind, translated into English. He would sometimes say,\nafter looking for a minute at a picture, generally a modern one, \"There's\nno use in stopping at this; for I see the painter had no idea. It is mere\nmechanical drawing. Come on; _here_ the artist _meant_ something for the\nmind.\" It was just the same with his knowledge of music. His appetite for\nwhat he thought good was literally inexhaustible. He told me he could\nlisten to fine music for twelve hours together, and go away _refreshed_.\nBut he required in music either thought or feeling; mere addresses to the\nsensual ear he could not away with; hence his utter distaste for Rossini,\nand his reverence for Beethoven and Mozart--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nGiovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina was born about 1529, and died in 1594. I\nbelieve he may be considered the founder or reformer of the Italian church\nmusic. His masses, motets, and hymns are tolerably well known amongst\nlovers of the old composers; but Mr. Coleridge used to speak with delight\nof some of Palestrina's madrigals which he heard at Rome.\n\nGiacomo Carissimi composed about the years 1640--1650. His style has been\ncharged with effeminacy; but Mr. C. thought it very graceful and chaste.\nHenry Purcell needs no addition in England.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\n\"The thing attempted in Christabel is the most difficult of execution in\nthe whole field of romance--witchery by daylight--and the success is\ncomplete.\"--_Quarterly Review_, No. CIII. p. 29.]\n\n\n\n_July 8. 1833._\n\nPUBLIC SCHOOLS.\n\nI am clear for public schools as the general rule; but for particular\nchildren private education may be proper. For the purpose of moving at ease\nin the best English society,--mind, I don't call the London exclusive\nclique the best English society,--the defect of a public education upon the\nplan of our great schools and Oxford and Cambridge is hardly to be\nsupplied. But the defect is visible positively in some men, and only\nnegatively in others. The first _offend_ you by habits and modes of\nthinking and acting directly attributable to their private education; in\nthe others you only regret that the freedom and facility of the established\nand national mode of bringing up is not _added_ to their good qualities.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI more than doubt the expediency of making even\nelementary mathematics a part of the routine in the\nsystem of the great schools. It is enough, I think,\nthat encouragement and facilities should be given; and\nI think more will be thus effected than by compelling\nall. Much less would I incorporate the German or\nFrench, or any modern language, into the school labours.\nI think that a great mistake.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"One constant blunder\"--I find it so pencilled by Mr. C. on a margin--\"of\nthese New-Broomers--these Penny Magazine sages and philanthropists, in\nreference to our public schools, is to confine their view to what\nschoolmasters teach the boys, with entire oversight of all that the boys\nare excited to learn from each other and of themselves--with more geniality\neven because it is not a part of their compelled school knowledge. An Eton\nboy's knowledge of the St. Lawrence, Mississippi, Missouri, Orellana, &c.\nwill be, generally, found in exact proportion to his knowledge of the\nIlissus, Hebrus, Orontes, &c.; inasmuch as modern travels and voyages are\nmore entertaining and fascinating than Cellarius; or Robinson Crusoe,\nDampier, and Captain Cook, than the Periegesis. Compare the _lads_\nthemselves from Eton and Harrow, &c. with the alumni of the New-Broom\nInstitution, and not the lists of school-lessons; and be that comparison\nthe criterion.--ED.]\n\n\n\nAugust 4, 1833.\n\nSCOTT AND COLERIDGE.\n\n\nDear Sir Walter Scott and myself were exact, but harmonious, opposites in\nthis;--that every old ruin, hill, river, or tree called up in his mind a\nhost of historical or biographical associations,--just as a bright pan of\nbrass, when beaten, is said to attract the swarming bees;--whereas, for\nmyself, notwithstanding Dr. Johnson, I believe I should walk over the plain\nof Marathon without taking more interest in it than in any other plain of\nsimilar features. Yet I receive as much pleasure in reading the account of\nthe battle, in Herodotus, as any one can. Charles Lamb wrote an essay [1]\non a man who lived in past time:--I thought of adding another to it on one\nwho lived not in time at all, past, present, or future,--but beside or\ncollaterally.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI know not when or where; but are not all the writings of this exquisite\ngenius the effusions of one whose spirit lived in past time? The place\nwhich Lamb holds, and will continue to hold, in English literature, seems\nless liable to interruption than that of any other writer of our day.--ED.]\n\n\n\nAugust 10. 1833.\n\nNERVOUS WEAKNESS.----HOOKER AND BULL.-----FAITH.----A POET'S NEED OF\nPRAISE.\n\nA PERSON, nervously weak, has a sensation of weakness which is as bad to\nhim as muscular weakness. The only difference lies in the better chance of\nremoval.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe fact, that Hooker and Bull, in their two palmary works respectively,\nare read in the Jesuit Colleges, is a curious instance of the power of mind\nover the most profound of all prejudices.\n\nThere are permitted moments of exultation through faith, when we cease to\nfeel our own emptiness save as a capacity for our Redeemer's fulness.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is a species of applause scarcely less genial to a poet, than the\nvernal warmth to the feathered songsters during their nest-breeding or\nincubation; a sympathy, an expressed hope, that is the open air in which\nthe poet breathes, and without which the sense of power sinks back on\nitself, like a sigh heaved up from the tightened chest of a sick man.\n\n\n\n_August_ 14. 1833.\n\nQUAKERS.--PHILANTHROPISTS.--JEWS.\n\n\nA quaker is made up of ice and flame. He has no composition, no mean\ntemperature. Hence he is rarely interested about any public measure but he\nbecomes a fanatic, and oversteps, in his irrespective zeal, every decency\nand every right opposed to his course.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have never known a trader in philanthropy who was not wrong in heart\nsomewhere or other. Individuals so distinguished are usually unhappy in\ntheir family relations,--men not benevolent or beneficent to individuals,\nbut almost hostile to them, yet lavishing money and labour and time on the\nrace, the abstract notion. The cosmopolitism which does not spring out of,\nand blossom upon, the deep-rooted stem of nationality or patriotism, is a\nspurious and rotten growth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen I read the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the\nRomans to that fine old man Mr. ----, at Ramsgate, he shed tears. Any Jew\nof sensibility must be deeply impressed by them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe two images farthest removed from each other which can be comprehended\nunder one term, are, I think, Isaiah [1]--\"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O\nearth!\"--and Levi of Holywell Street--\"Old clothes!\"--both of them Jews,\nyou'll observe. _Immane quantum discrepant!_\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI remember Mr. Coleridge used to call Isaiah his ideal of the Hebrew\nprophet. He studied that part of the Scripture with unremitting attention\nand most reverential admiration. Although Mr. C. was remarkably deficient\nin the technical memory of words, he could say a great deal of Isaiah by\nheart, and he delighted in pointing out the hexametrical rhythm of numerous\npassages in the English version:--\n\n\"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, | O earth: for the Lord hath spoken.\nI have nourished and brought up children, | and they have rebelled\n  against me.\nThe ox knoweth his owner, | and the ass his master's crib:\nBut Israel doth not know, | my people doth not consider.\"--ED.]\n\n\n\n_August_ 15. 1833.\n\nSALLUST.--THUCYDIDES.--HERODOTUS.--GIBBON.--KEY TO THE DECLINE OF THE ROMAN\nEMPIRE.\n\n\nI consider the two works of Sallust which have come down to us entire, as\nromances founded on facts; no adequate causes are stated, and there is no\nreal continuity of action. In Thucydides, you are aware from the beginning\nthat you are reading the reflections of a man of great genius and\nexperience upon the character and operation of the two great political\nprinciples in conflict in the civilized world in his time; his narrative of\nevents is of minor importance, and it is evident that he selects for the\npurpose of illustration. It is Thucydides himself whom you read throughout\nunder the names of Pericles, Nicias, &c. But in Herodotus it is just the\nreverse. He has as little subjectivity as Homer, and, delighting in the\ngreat fancied epic of events, he narrates them without impressing any thing\nas of his own mind upon the narrative. It is the charm of Herodotus that he\ngives you the spirit of his age--that of Thucydides, that he reveals to you\nhis own, which was above the spirit of his age.\n\nThe difference between the composition of a history in modern and ancient\ntimes is very great; still there are certain principles upon which the\nhistory of a modern period may be written, neither sacrificing all truth\nand reality, like Gibbon, nor descending into mere biography and anecdote.\n\nGibbon's style is detestable, but his style is not the worst thing about\nhim. His history has proved an effectual bar to all real familiarity with\nthe temper and habits of imperial Rome. Few persons read the original\nauthorities, even those which are classical; and certainly no distinct\nknowledge of the actual state of the empire can be obtained from Gibbon's\nrhetorical sketches. He takes notice of nothing but what may produce an\neffect; he skips on from eminence to eminence, without ever taking you\nthrough the valleys between: in fact, his work is little else but a\ndisguised collection of all the splendid anecdotes which he could find in\nany book concerning any persons or nations from the Antonines to the\ncapture of Constantinople. When I read a chapter in Gibbon, I seem to be\nlooking through a luminous haze or fog:--figures come and go, I know not\nhow or why, all larger than life, or distorted or discoloured; nothing is\nreal, vivid, true; all is scenical, and, as it were, exhibited by\ncandlelight. And then to call it a History of the Decline and Fall of the\nRoman Empire!\n\nWas there ever a greater misnomer? I protest I do not remember a single\nphilosophical attempt made throughout the work to fathom the ultimate\ncauses of the decline or fall of that empire. How miserably deficient is\nthe narrative of the important reign of Justinian! And that poor\nscepticism, which Gibbon mistook for Socratic philosophy, has led him to\nmisstate and mistake the character and influence of Christianity in a way\nwhich even an avowed infidel or atheist would not and could not have done.\nGibbon was a man of immense reading; but he had no philosophy; and he never\nfully understood the principle upon which the best of the old historians\nwrote. He attempted to imitate their artificial construction of the whole\nwork--their dramatic ordonnance of the parts--without seeing that their\nhistories were intended more as documents illustrative of the truths of\npolitical philosophy than as mere chronicles of events.\n\nThe true key to the declension of the Roman empire--which is not to be\nfound in all Gibbon's immense work--may be stated in two words:--the\n_imperial_ character overlaying, and finally destroying, the _national_\ncharacter. Rome under Trajan was an empire without a nation.\n\n\n\n_August_ 16. 1833.\n\nDR. JOHNSON'S POLITICAL PAMPHLETS.--TAXATION.-DIRECT REPRESENTATION.---\nUNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.---RIGHT OF WOMEN TO VOTE----HORNE TOOKE.----ETYMOLOGY\nOF THE FINAL IVE.\n\n\nI like Dr. Johnson's political pamphlets better than any other parts of his\nworks:-particularly his \"Taxation no Tyranny\" is very clever and spirited,\nthough he only sees half of his subject, and that not in a very\nphilosophical manner. Plunder--Tribute--Taxation--are the three gradations\nof action by the sovereign on the property of the subject. The first is\nmere violence, bounded by no law or custom, and is properly an act only\nbetween conqueror and conquered, and that, too, in the moment of victory.\nThe second supposes law; but law proceeding only from, and dictated by, one\nparty, the conqueror; law, by which he consents to forego his right of\nplunder upon condition of the conquered giving up to him, of their own\naccord, a fixed commutation. The third implies compact, and negatives any\nright to plunder,--taxation being professedly for the direct benefit of the\nparty taxed, that, by paying a part, he may through the labours and\nsuperintendence of the sovereign be able to enjoy the rest in peace. As to\nthe right to tax being only commensurate with direct representation, it is\na fable, falsely and treacherously brought forward by those who know its\nhollowness well enough. You may show its weakness in a moment, by observing\nthat not even the universal suffrage of the Benthamites avoids the\ndifficulty;--for although it may be allowed to be contrary to decorum that\nwomen should legislate; yet there can be no reason why women should not\nchoose their representatives to legislate;--and if it be said that they are\nmerged in their husbands, let it be allowed where the wife has no separate\nproperty; but where she has a distinct taxable estate, in which her husband\nhas no interest, what right can her husband have to choose for her the\nperson whose vote may affect her separate interest?--Besides, at all\nevents, an unmarried woman of age, possessing one thousand pounds a year,\nhas surely as good a moral right to vote, if taxation without\nrepresentation is tyranny, as any ten-pounder in the kingdom. The truth, of\ncourse, is, that direct representation is a chimera, impracticable in fact,\nand useless or noxious if practicable.\n\nJohnson had neither eye nor ear; for nature, therefore, he cared, as he\nknew, nothing. His knowledge of town life was minute; but even that was\nimperfect, as not being contrasted with the better life of the country.\n\nHorne Tooke was once holding forth on language, when, turning to me, he\nasked me if I knew what the meaning of the final _ive_ was in English\nwords. I said I thought I could tell what he, Horne Tooke himself, thought.\n\"Why, what?\" said he. \"_Vis_,\" I replied; and he acknowledged I had guessed\nright. I told him, however, that I could not agree with him; but believed\nthat the final _ive_ came from _ick_--_vicus_, [Greek: --] a'txaq; the root\ndenoting collectivity and community, and that it was opposed to the final\n_ing_, which signifies separation, particularity, and individual property,\nfrom _ingle_, a hearth, or one man's place or seat: [Greek: --] oi'xo?,\n_vicus_, denoted an aggregation of _ingles_. The alteration of the _c_ and\n_k_ of the root into the _v_ was evidently the work of the digammate power,\nand hence we find the _icus_ and _ivus_ indifferently as finals in Latin.\nThe precise difference of the etymologies is apparent in these phrases:---\nThe lamb is spor_tive;_ that is, has a nature or habit of sporting: the\nlamb is sport_ing;_ that is, the animal is now performing a sport. Horne\nTooke upon this said nothing to my etymology; but I believe he found that\nhe could not make a fool of me, as he did of Godwin and some other of his\nbutts.\n\n\n\nAugust 17. 1833.\n\n\"THE LORD\" IN THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE PSALMS, ETC.----SCOTCH KIRK AND\nIRVING.\n\n\nIt is very extraordinary that, in our translation of the Psalms, which\nprofesses to be from the Hebrew, the name Jehovah--[Hebrew: --] 'O -- The\nBeing, or God--should be omitted, and, instead of it, the [Hebrew: --]\nKtlpio?, or Lord, of the Septuagint be adopted. The Alexandrian Jews had a\nsuperstitious dread of writing the name of God, and put [Greek: Kurhios]\nnot as a translation, but as a mere mark or sign--every one readily\nunderstanding for what it really stood. We, who have no such superstition,\nought surely to restore the Jehovah, and thereby bring out in the true\nforce the overwhelming testimony of the Psalms to the divinity of Christ,\nthe Jehovah or manifested God.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI find the same remark in the late most excellent Bishop Sandford's diary,\nunder date 17th December, 1827:--\"[Greek: CHairhete en t_o Kurhi_o Kurhios]\nidem significat quod [Hebrew: --] apud Hebraeos. Hebraei enim nomine\n[Hebrew: --] sanctissimo nempe Dei nomine, nunquam in colloquio utebantur,\nsed vice ejus [Hebrew: --] pronuntiabant, quod LXX per [Greek: Kurhios]\nexprimebant.\"--_Remains of Bishop Sandford_, vol. i. p. 207.\n\nMr. Coleridge saw this work for the first time many months after making the\nobservation in the text. Indeed it was the very last book he ever read. He\nwas deeply interested in the picture drawn of the Bishop, and said that the\nmental struggles and bodily sufferings indicated in the Diary had been his\nown for years past. He conjured me to peruse the Memoir and the Diary with\ngreat care:--\"I have received,\" said he, \"much spiritual comfort and\nstrength from the latter. O! were my faith and devotion, like my\nsufferings, equal to that good man's! He felt, as I do, how deep a depth is\nprayer in faith.\"\n\nIn connection with the text, I may add here, that Mr. C. said, that long\nbefore he knew that the late Bishop Middleton was of the same opinion, he\nhad deplored the misleading inadequacy of our authorized version of the\nexpression, [Greek: pr_ototokos pas_es ktise_os] in the Epistle to the\nColossians, i. 15.: [Greek: hos estin eik_on tou THeou tou aoratou,\npr_ototokos pas_es ktise_os.] He rendered the verse in these words:--\"Who\nis the manifestation of God the invisible, the begotten antecedently to all\ncreation;\" observing, that in [Greek: pr_ototokos] there was a double\nsuperlative of priority, and that the natural meaning of \"_first-born of\nevery creature_,\"--the language of our version,--afforded no premiss for\nthe causal [Greek: hoti] in the next verse. The same criticism may be found\nin the Stateman's Manual, p. 56. n.; and see Bishop Sandford's judgment to\nthe same effect, vol. i. p. 165.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot understand the conduct of the Scotch Kirk with regard to poor\nIrving. They might with ample reason have visited him for the monstrous\nindecencies of those exhibitions of the spirit;--perhaps the Kirk would not\nhave been justified in overlooking such disgraceful breaches of decorum;\nbut to excommunicate him on account of his language about Christ's body was\nvery foolish. Irving's expressions upon this subject are ill judged,\ninconvenient, in had taste, and in terms false: nevertheless his apparent\nmeaning, such as it is, is orthodox. Christ's body--as mere body, or rather\ncarcass (for body is an associated word), was no more capable of sin or\nrighteousness than mine or yours;--that his humanity had a capacity of sin,\nfollows from its own essence. He was of like passions as we, and was\ntempted. How could he be tempted, if he had no formal capacity of being\nseduced?\n\nIt is Irving's error to use declamation, high and passionate rhetoric, not\nintroduced and pioneered by calm and clear logic, which is--to borrow a\nsimile, though with a change in the application, from the witty-wise, but\nnot always wisely-witty, Fuller--like knocking a nail into a board, without\nwimbling a hole for it, and which then either does not enter, or turns\ncrooked, or splits the wood it pierces.\n\n\n\nAugust 18. 1833.\n\nMILTON'S EGOTISM.--CLAUDIAN.--STERNE.\n\n\nIn the Paradise Lost--indeed in every one of his poems--it is Milton\nhimself whom you see; his Satan, his Adam, his Raphael, almost his Eve--are\nall John Milton; and it is a sense of this intense egotism that gives me\nthe greatest pleasure in reading Milton's works. The egotism of such a man\nis a revelation of spirit.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nClaudian deserves more attention than is generally paid to him. He is the\nlink between the old classic and the modern way of thinking in verse. You\nwill observe in him an oscillation between the objective poetry of the\nancients and the subjective mood of the moderns. His power of pleasingly\nreproducing the same thought in different language is remarkable, as it is\nin Pope. Read particularly the Phoenix, and see how the single image of\nrenascence is varied.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge referred to Claudian's first Idyll:--\"Oceani summo\ncircumfluus cequore lucus Trans Indos Eurumque viret,\" &c. See the lines--\n\n\"Hic neque concepto fetu, nec semine surgit;\nSed pater est prolesque sibi, nulloque creante\nEmeritos artus foecunda morte reformat,\nEt petit alternam totidem per funera vitam.\n...\nEt cumulum texens pretiosa fronde Sabaeum\nComponit bustumque sibi partumque futurum.\n...\nO senium positure rogo, falsisque sepulcris\nNatales habiture vices, qui saepe renasci\nExitio, proprioque soles pubescere leto,\nAccipe principium rursus.\n...\nParturiente rogo--\n...\nVicturi cineres--\n...\nQm fuerat genitor, natus nunc prosilit idem,\nSucceditque novus---\n...\nO felix, haeresque tui! quo solvimur omnes,\nHoc tibi suppeditat vires; praebetur origo\nPer cinerem; moritur te non pereunte senectus.\"--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nI think highly of Sterne--that is, of the first part of Tristram Shandy:\nfor as to the latter part about the widow Wadman, it is stupid and\ndisgusting; and the Sentimental Journey is poor sickly stuff. There is a\ngreat deal of affectation in Sterne, to be sure; but still the characters\nof Trim and the two Shandies[1] are most individual and delightful.\nSterne's morals are bad, but I don't think they can do much harm to any one\nwhom they would not find bad enough before. Besides, the oddity and erudite\ngrimaces under which much of his dirt is hidden take away the effect for\nthe most part; although, to be sure, the book is scarcely readable by\nwomen.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMr. Coleridge considered the character of the father, the elder Shandy, as\nby much the finer delineation of the two. I fear his low opinion of the\nSentimental Journey will not suit a thorough Sterneist; but I could never\nget him to modify his criticism. He said, \"The oftener you read Sterne, the\nmore clearly will you perceive the _great_ difference between Tristram\nShandy and the Sentimental Journey. There is truth and reality in the one,\nand little beyond a clever affectation in the other.\"--ED.]\n\n\n\nAugust 20. 1833.\n\nHUMOUR AND GENIUS.--GREAT POETS GOOD MEN.--DICTION OF THE OLD AND NEW\nTESTAMENT VERSION.--HEBREW.--VOWELS AND CONSONANTS.\n\n\nMen of humour are always in some degree men of genius; wits are rarely so,\nalthough a man of genius may amongst other gifts possess wit, as\nShakspeare.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGenius must have talent as its complement and implement, just as in like\nmanner imagination must have fancy. In short, the higher intellectual\npowers can only act through a corresponding energy of the lower.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMen of genius are rarely much annoyed by the company of vulgar people,\nbecause they have a power of looking _at_ such persons as objects of\namusement of another race altogether.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI quite agree with Strabo, as translated by Ben Jonson in his splendid\ndedication of the Fox[1]--that there can be no great poet who is not a good\nman, though not, perhaps, a _goody_ man. His heart must be pure; he must\nhave learned to look into his own heart, and sometimes to look _at_ it; for\nhow can he who is ignorant of his own heart know any thing of, or be able\nto move, the heart of any one else?\n\n[Footnote 1:\n[Greek: 'H de (arhet_e) poi_etou synezeyktai t_e tou anthrh_opou kai ouch\noion te agathon genesthai poi_et_en, m_e prhoterhon gen_ethenta angrha\nagathon.]--Lib. I. p. 33. folio.\n\n\"For, if men will impartially, and not asquint, look toward the offices and\nfunction of a poet, they will easily conclude to themselves the\nimpossibility of any man's being the good poet without first being a good\nman.\"]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think there is a perceptible difference in the elegance and correctness\nof the English in our versions of the Old and New Testament. I cannot yield\nto the authority of many examples of usages which may be alleged from the\nNew Testament version. St. Paul is very often most inadequately rendered,\nand there are slovenly phrases which would never have come from Ben Jonson\nor any other good prose writer of that day.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHebrew is so simple, and its words are so few and near the roots, that it\nis impossible to keep up any adequate knowledge of it without constant\napplication. The meanings of the words are chiefly traditional. The loss of\nOrigen's Heptaglott Bible, in which he had written out the Hebrew words in\nGreek characters, is the heaviest which biblical literature has ever\nexperienced. It would have fixed the sounds as known at that time.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBrute animals have the vowel sounds; man only can utter consonants. It is\nnatural, therefore, that the consonants should be marked first, as being\nthe framework of the word; and no doubt a very simple living language might\nbe written quite intelligibly to the natives without any vowel sounds\nmarked at all. The words would be traditionally and conventionally\nrecognized as in short hand--thus--_Gd crtd th Hvn nd th Rth_. I wish I\nunderstood Arabic; and yet I doubt whether to the European philosopher or\nscholar it is worth while to undergo the immense labour of acquiring that\nor any other Oriental tongue, except Hebrew.\n\n\n\n_August_ 23. 1833.\n\nGREEK ACCENT AND QUANTITY.\n\n\nThe distinction between accent and quantity is clear, and was, no doubt,\nobserved by the ancients in the recitation of verse. But I believe such\nrecitation to have been always an artificial thing, and that the common\nconversation was entirely regulated by accent. I do not think it possible\nto _talk_ any language without confounding the quantity of syllables with\ntheir high or low tones[1]; although you may _sing_ or _recitative_ the\ndifference well enough. Why should the marks of accent have been considered\nexclusively necessary for teaching the pronunciation to the Asiatic or\nAfrican Hellenist, if the knowledge of the acuted syllable did not also\ncarry the stress of time with it? If _[Greek: **anthropos]_ was to be\npronounced in common conversation with a perceptible distinction of the\nlength of the penultima as well as of the elevation of the antepenultima,\nwhy was not that long quantity also marked? It was surely as important an\ningredient in the pronunciation as the accent. And although the letter\nomega might in such a word show the quantity, yet what do you say to such\nwords as [Greek: lelonchasi, tupsasa], and the like--the quantity of the\npenultima of which is not marked to the eye at all? Besides, can we\naltogether disregard the practice of the modern Greeks? Their confusion of\naccent and quantity in verse is of course a barbarism, though a very old\none, as the _versus politici_ of John Tzetzes [2] in the twelfth century\nand the Anacreontics prefixed to Proclus will show; but these very examples\nprove _a fortiori_ what the common pronunciation in prose then was.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThis opinion, I need not say, is in direct opposition to the conclusion of\nFoster and Mitford, and scarcely reconcilable with the apparent meaning of\nthe authorities from the old critics and grammarians. Foster's opponent was\nfor rejecting the accents and attending only to the syllabic quantity;--Mr.\nC. would, _in prose_, attend to the accents only as indicators of the\nquantity, being unable to conceive any practical distinction between time\nand tone in common speech. Yet how can we deal with the authority of\nDionysius of Halicarnassus alone, who, on the one hand, discriminates\nquantity so exquisitely as to make four degrees of _shortness_ in the\npenultimates of _[Greek: --hodos hr odos, tz opos]_ and _[Greek: --stz\nophos]_, and this expressly _[Greek: --eu logois psilois]_, or plain prose,\nas well as in verse; and on the other hand declares, according to the\nevidently correct interpretation of the passage, that the difference\nbetween music and ordinary speech consists in the number only, and not in\nthe quality, of tones:--_[Greek: **to Poso diallattousa taes su odais kahi\noznauois, kahi ouchi to Poio_. (Pezhi Sun. c. 11.?]) The extreme\nsensibility of the Athenian ear to the accent in prose is, indeed, proved\nby numerous anecdotes, one of the most amusing of which, though, perhaps,\nnot the best authenticated as a fact, is that of Demosthenes in the Speech\nfor the Crown, asking, \"Whether, O Athenians, does Aeschines appear to you\nto be the mercenary (_[Greek: **misthothos]_} of Alexander, or his guest or\nfriend (_[Greek: **xenos]_)?\" It is said that he pronounced _[Greek:\n**misthothos]_ with a false accent on the antepenultima, as _[Greek:\n**misthotos]_, and that upon the audience immediately crying out, by way of\ncorrection, _[Greek: **misthothos]_, with an emphasis, the orator continued\ncoolly,--_[Greek: **achoueis a legousi]_--\"You yourself hear what they\nsay!\" Demosthenes is also said, whether affectedly, or in ignorance, to\nhave sworn in some speech by _[Greek: Asklaepios]_, throwing the accent\nfalsely on the antepenultima, and that, upon being interrupted for it, he\ndeclared, in his justification, that the pronunciation was proper, for that\nthe divinity was _[Greek: aepios]_, mild. The expressions in Plutarch are\nvery striking:--\"[Greek: **Thozuxon ekinaesen, omnue dhe kahi thon'\nAsklaepion, pzopasoxunon' Asklaepion, kai pazedeiknuen autohn ozthos\nlegonta' einai gahz tohn thehon aepion' kahi epi outo polakis\nhethozuzaethae.\" Dec. Orat._--Ed.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nSee his Chiliads. The sort of verses to which Mr. Coleridge alluded are the\nfollowing, which those who consider the scansion to be accentual, take for\ntetrameter catalectic iambics, like--\n\n  [Greek: ----]\n  (\n\n_Chil_. I.\n\nI 'll climb the frost | y mountains high |, and there I 'll coin | the weather;\nI'll tear the rain | bow from the sky |, and tie both ends | together.\n\nSome critics, however, maintain these verses to be trochaics, although very\nloose and faulty. See Foster, p. 113. A curious instance of the early\nconfusion of accent and quantity may be seen in Prudentius, who shortens\nthe penultima in _eremus_ and _idola_, from [Greek: ezaemos] and [Greek:\neidola].\n\nCui jejuna _eremi_ saxa loquacibus\nExundant scatebris, &c.\n_Cathemer_. V. 89.\n\n--cognatumque malum, pigmenta, Camoenas,\n_Idola_, conflavit fallendi trina potestas.\n_Cont. Symm_. 47.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_August 24. 1833._\n\nCONSOLATION IN DISTRESS.---MOCK EVANGELICALS.--AUTUMN DAY.\n\nI am never very forward in offering spiritual consolation to any one in\ndistress or disease. I believe that such resources, to be of any service,\nmust be self-evolved in the first instance. I am something of the Quaker's\nmind in this, and am inclined to _wait_ for the spirit.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe most common effect of this mock evangelical spirit, especially with\nyoung women, is self-inflation and busy-bodyism.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow strange and awful is the synthesis of life and death in the gusty winds\nand falling leaves of an autumnal day!\n\n\n\nAugust 25. 1833.\n\nROSETTI ON DANTE.--LAUGHTER: FARCE AND TRAGEDY.\n\n\nRosetti's view of Dante's meaning is in great part just, but he has pushed\nit beyond all bounds of common sense. How could a poet--and such a poet as\nDante--have written the details of the allegory as conjectured by Rosetti?\nThe boundaries between his allegory and his pure picturesque are plain\nenough, I think, at first reading.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo resolve laughter into an expression of contempt is contrary to fact, and\nlaughable enough. Laughter is a convulsion of the nerves; and it seems as\nif nature cut short the rapid thrill of pleasure on the nerves by a sudden\nconvulsion of them, to prevent the sensation becoming painful. Aristotle's\ndefinition is as good as can be:--surprise at perceiving any thing out of\nits usual place, when the unusualness is not accompanied by a sense of\nserious danger. _Such_ surprise is always pleasurable; and it is observable\nthat surprise accompanied with circumstances of danger becomes tragic.\nHence farce may often border on tragedy; indeed, farce is nearer tragedy in\nits essence than comedy is.\n\n\n\nAugust 28. 1833.\n\nBARON VON HUMBOLDT.--MODERN DIPLOMATISTS.\n\n\nBaron von Humboldt, brother of the great traveller, paid me the following\ncompliment at Rome:--\"I confess, Mr. Coleridge, I had my suspicions that\nyou were here in a political capacity of some sort or other; but upon\nreflection I acquit you. For in Germany and, I believe, elsewhere on the\nContinent, it is generally understood that the English government, in order\nto divert the envy and jealousy of the world at the power, wealth, and\ningenuity of your nation, makes a point, as a _ruse de guerre_, of sending\nout none but fools of gentlemanly birth and connections as diplomatists to\nthe courts abroad. An exception is, perhaps, sometimes made for a clever\nfellow, if sufficiently libertine and unprincipled.\" Is the case much\naltered now, do you know?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat dull coxcombs your diplomatists at home generally are. I remember\ndining at Mr. Frere's once in company with Canning and a few other\ninteresting men. Just before dinner Lord ---- called on Frere, and asked\nhimself to dinner. From the moment of his entry he began to talk to the\nwhole party, and in French--all of us being genuine English--and I was told\nhis French was execrable. He had followed the Russian army into France, and\nseen a good deal of the great men concerned in the war: of none of those\nthings did he say a word, but went on, sometimes in English and sometimes\nin French, gabbling about cookery and dress and the like. At last he paused\nfor a little--and I said a few words remarking how a great image may be\nreduced to the ridiculous and contemptible by bringing the constituent\nparts into prominent detail, and mentioned the grandeur of the deluge and\nthe preservation of life in Genesis and the Paradise Lost [1], and the\nludicrous effect produced by Drayton's description in his Noah's Flood:--\n\n\"And now the beasts are walking from the wood,\nAs well of ravine, as that chew the cud.\nThe king of beasts his fury doth suppress,\nAnd to the Ark leads down the lioness;\nThe bull for his beloved mate doth low,\nAnd to the Ark brings on the fair-eyed cow,\" &c.\n\nHereupon Lord ---- resumed, and spoke in raptures of a picture which he\nhad lately seen of Noah's Ark, and said the animals were all marching two\nand two, the little ones first, and that the elephants came last in great\nmajesty and filled up the fore-ground. \"Ah! no doubt, my Lord,\" said\nCanning; \"your elephants, wise fellows! staid behind to pack up their\ntrunks!\" This floored the ambassador for half an hour.\n\nIn the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries almost all our ambassadors were\ndistinguished men. [2] Read Lloyd's State Worthies. The third-rate men of\nthose days possessed an infinity of knowledge, and were intimately versed\nnot only in the history, but even in the heraldry, of the countries in\nwhich they were resident. Men were almost always, except for mere\ncompliments, chosen for their dexterity and experience--not, as now, by\nparliamentary interest.\n\n[Footnote 1: Genesis, c. vi. vii. Par. Lost, book xi. v. 728, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nYet Diego de Mendoza, the author of Lazarillo de Tormes, himself a veteran\ndiplomatist, describes his brethren of the craft, and their duties, in the\nreigns of Charles the Emperor and Philip the Second, in the following\nterms:--\n\nO embajadores, puros majaderos,\n  Que si los reyes quieren enga\u00f1ar,\n  Comienzan por nosotros los primeros.\n_Nuestro mayor negocio es, no da\u00f1ar,\n  Y jamas hacer cosa, ni dezilla,\n  Que no corramos riesgo de ense\u00f1ar._\n\nWhat a pity it is that modern diplomatists, who, for the most part, very\ncarefully observe the precept contained in the last two lines of this\npassage, should not equally bear in mind the importance of the preceding\nremark--_that their principal business is just to do no mischief_.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe sure way to make a foolish ambassador is to bring him up to it. What\ncan an English minister abroad really want but an honest and bold heart, a\nlove for his country and the ten commandments? Your art diplomatic is\nstuff:--no truly greatly man now would negotiate upon any such shallow\nprinciples.\n\n\n\nAugust 30. 1833.\n\nMAN CANNOT BE STATIONARY.--FATALISM AND PROVIDENCE.--SYMPATHY IN JOY.\n\n\nIf a man is not rising upwards to be an angel, depend upon it, he is\nsinking downwards to be a devil. He cannot stop at the beast. The most\nsavage of men are not beasts; they are worse, a great deal worse.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe conduct of the Mohammedan and Western nations on the subject of\ncontagious plague illustrates the two extremes of error on the nature of\nGod's moral government of the world. The Turk changes Providence into\nfatalism; the Christian relies upon it--when he has nothing else to rely\non. He does not practically rely upon it at all.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFor compassion a human heart suffices; but for full and adequate sympathy\nwith joy an angel's only. And ever remember, that the more exquisite and\ndelicate a flower of joy, the tenderer must be the hand that plucks it.\n\n\n\n_September_ 2. 1833.\n\nCHARACTERISTIC TEMPERAMENT OF NATIONS.--GREEK PARTICLES.--LATIN COMPOUNDS.-\n-PROPERTIUS.--TIBULLUS.--LUCAN.--STATIUS.--VALERIUS FLACCUS.--CLAUDIAN.--\nPERSIUS.------PRUDENTIUS.--HERMESIANAX.\n\n\nThe English affect stimulant nourishment--beef and beer. The French,\nexcitants, irritants--nitrous oxide, alcohol, champagne. The Austrians,\nsedatives--hyoscyamus. The Russians, narcotics--opium, tobacco, and beng.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is worth particular notice how the style of Greek oratory, so full, in\nthe times of political independence, of connective particles, some of\npassion, some of sensation only, and escaping the classification of mere\ngrammatical logic, became, in the hands of the declaimers and philosophers\nof the Alexandrian era, and still later, entirely deprived of this\npeculiarity. So it was with Homer as compared with Nonnus, Tryphiodorus,\nand the like. In the latter there are in the same number of lines fewer\nwords by one half than in the Iliad. All the appoggiaturas of time are\nlost.\n\nAll the Greek writers after Demosthenes and his contemporaries, what are\nthey but the leavings of tyranny, in which a few precious things seem\nsheltered by the mass of rubbish! Yet, whenever liberty began but to hope\nand strive, a Polybius appeared. Theocritus is almost the only instance I\nknow of a man of true poetic genius nourishing under a tyranny.\n\nThe old Latin poets attempted to compound as largely as the Greek; hence in\nEnnius such words as _belligerentes_, &c. In nothing did Virgil show his\njudgment more than in rejecting these, except just where common usage had\nsanctioned them, as _omnipotens_ and a few more. He saw that the Latin was\ntoo far advanced in its formation, and of too rigid a character, to admit\nsuch composition or agglutination. In this particular respect Virgil's\nLatin is very admirable and deserving preference. Compare it with the\nlanguage of Lucan or Statius, and count the number of words used in an\nequal number of lines, and observe how many more short words Virgil has.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI cannot quite understand the grounds of the high admiration which the\nancients expressed for Propertius, and I own that Tibullus is rather\ninsipid to me. Lucan was a man of great powers; but what was to be made of\nsuch a shapeless fragment of party warfare, and so recent too! He had fancy\nrather than imagination, and passion rather than fancy. His taste was\nwretched, to be sure; still the Pharsalia is in my judgment a very\nwonderful work for such a youth as Lucan[1] was.\n\nI think Statius a truer poet than Lucan, though he is very extravagant\nsometimes. Valerius Flaccus is very pretty in particular passages. I am\nashamed to say, I have never read Silius Italicus. Claudian I recommend to\nyour careful perusal, in respect of his being properly the first of the\nmoderns, or at least the transitional link between the Classic and the\nGothic mode of thought.\n\nI call Persius hard--not obscure. He had a bad style; but I dare say, if he\nhad lived[2], he would have learned to express himself in easier language.\nThere are many passages in him of exquisite felicity, and his vein of\nthought is manly and pathetic.\n\nPrudentius[3] is curious for this,--that you see how Christianity forced\nallegory into the place of mythology. Mr. Frere [Greek: ho philokalos, ho\nkalokagathos] used to esteem the Latin Christian poets of Italy very\nhighly, and no man in our times was a more competent judge than he.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nLucan died by the command of Nero, A.D. 65, in his twenty-sixth year. I\nthink this should be printed at the beginning of every book of the\nPharsalia.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nAulus Persius Flaccus died in the 30th year of his age, A.D. 62.--ED.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\nAurelius Prudentius Clemens was born A.D. 348, in Spain.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow very pretty are those lines of Hermesianax in Athenaeus about the poets\nand poetesses of Greece![1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nSee the fragment from the Leontium:--\n\n[Greek: HOi_en men philos huios an_egagen Oiagrhoio\n  Agrhiop_en, THr_essan steilamenos kithar_en\nAidothen k. t. l.] _Athen_. xiii. s. 71--ED]\n\n\nSeptember 4. 1833.\n\nDESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.--EPIC POEM.--GERMAN\nAND ENGLISH.--MODERN TRAVELS.--PARADISE\nLOST.\n\nI have already told you that in my opinion the destruction of Jerusalem is\nthe only subject now left for an epic poem of the highest kind. Yet, with\nall its great capabilities, it has this one grand defect--that, whereas a\npoem, to be epic, must have a personal interest,--in the destruction of\nJerusalem no genius or skill could possibly preserve the interest for the\nhero from being merged in the interest for the event. The fact is, the\nevent itself is too sublime and overwhelming.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn my judgment, an epic poem must either be national or mundane. As to\nArthur, you could not by any means make a poem on him national to\nEnglishmen. What have _we_ to do with him? Milton saw this, and with a\njudgment at least equal to his genius, took a mundane theme--one common to\nall mankind. His Adam and Eve are all men and women inclusively. Pope\nsatirizes Milton for making God the Father talk like a school divine.[1]\nPope was hardly the man to criticize Milton. The truth is, the judgment of\nMilton in the conduct of the celestial part of his story is very exquisite.\nWherever God is represented as directly acting as Creator, without any\nexhibition of his own essence, Milton adopts the simplest and sternest\nlanguage of the Scriptures. He ventures upon no poetic diction, no\namplification, no pathos, no affection. It is truly the Voice or the Word\nof the Lord coming to, and acting on, the subject Chaos. But, as some\npersonal interest was demanded for the purposes of poetry, Milton takes\nadvantage of the dramatic representation of God's address to the Son, the\nFilial Alterity, and in _those addresses_ slips in, as it were by stealth,\nlanguage of affection, or thought, or sentiment. Indeed, although Milton\nwas undoubtedly a high Arian in his mature life, he does in the necessity\nof poetry give a greater objectivity to the Father and the Son, than he\nwould have justified in argument. He was very wise in adopting the strong\nanthropomorphism of the Hebrew Scriptures at once. Compare the Paradise\nLost with Klopstock's Messiah, and you will learn to appreciate Milton's\njudgment and skill quite as much as his genius.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\n\"Milton's strong pinion now not Heav'n can bound,\nNow, serpent-like, in prose he sweeps the ground;\nIn quibbles angel and archangel join,\nAnd God the Father turns a school divine.\"\n\n1 Epist. 2d book of Hor. v. 99.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe conquest of India by Bacchus might afford scope for a very brilliant\npoem of the fancy and the understanding.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is not that the German can express external imagery more _fully_ than\nEnglish; but that it can flash more images _at once_ on the mind than the\nEnglish can. As to mere power of expression, I doubt whether even the Greek\nsurpasses the English. Pray, read a very pleasant and acute dialogue in\nSchlegel's Athenaeum between a German, a Greek, a Roman, Italian, and a\nFrenchman, on the merits of their respective languages.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI wish the naval and military officers who write accounts of their travels\nwould just spare us their sentiment. The Magazines introduced this cant.\nLet these gentlemen read and imitate the old captains and admirals, as\nDampier, &c.\n\n\n\nOctober 15. 1833.\n\nTHE TRINITY.--INCARNATION.--REDEMPTION.--EDUCATION.\n\n\nThe Trinity is the idea: the Incarnation, which implies the Fall, is the\nfact: the Redemption is the mesothesis of the two--that is--the religion.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf you bring up your children in a way which puts them out of sympathy with\nthe religious feelings of the nation in which they live, the chances are,\nthat they will ultimately turn out ruffians or fanatics--and one as likely\nas the other.\n\n\n\nOctober 23. 1833.\n\nELEGY.--LAVACRUM PALLADOS.--GREEK AND LATIN PENTAMETER.--MILTON'S LATIN\nPOEMS.--POETICAL FILTER.--GRAY AND COTTON.\n\n\nElegy is the form of poetry natural to the reflective mind. It _may_ treat\nof any subject, but it must treat of no subject _for itself_; but always\nand exclusively with reference to the poet himself. As he will feel regret\nfor the past or desire for the future, so sorrow and love become the\nprincipal themes of elegy. Elegy presents every thing as lost and gone, or\nabsent and future. The elegy is the exact opposite of the Homeric epic, in\nwhich all is purely external and objective, and the poet is a mere voice.\n\nThe true lyric ode is subjective too; but then it delights to present\nthings as actually existing and visible, although associated with the past,\nor coloured highly by the subject of the ode itself.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think the Lavacrum Pallados of Callimachus very beautiful indeed,\nespecially that part about the mother of Tiresias and Minerva.[1] I have a\nmind to try how it would bear translation; but what metre have we to answer\nin feeling to the elegiac couplet of the Greeks?\n\nI greatly prefer the Greek rhythm of the short verse to Ovid's, though,\nobserve, I don't dispute his taste with reference to the genius of his own\nlanguage. Augustus Schlegel gave me a copy of Latin elegiacs on the King of\nPrussia's going down the Rhine, in which he had almost exclusively adopted\nthe manner of Propertius. I thought them very elegant.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nGreek:\nPaides, Athanaia numphan mian en poka Th_ezais\n    po_olu ti kai pezi d_e philato tan hetezan,\nmateza Teizesiao, kai oupoka ch_ozis egento  k.t.l.\n                                          v 57, &c.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou may find a few minute faults in Milton's Latin verses; but you will not\npersuade me that, if these poems had come down to us _as_ written in the\nage of Tiberius, we should not have considered them to be very beautiful.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI once thought of making a collection,--to be called \"The Poetical\nFilter,\"--upon the principle of simply omitting from the old pieces of\nlyrical poetry which we have, those parts in which the whim or the bad\ntaste of the author or the fashion of his age prevailed over his genius.\nYou would be surprised at the number of exquisite _wholes_ which might be\nmade by this simple operation, and, perhaps, by the insertion of a single\nline or half a line, out of poems which are now utterly disregarded on\naccount of some odd or incongruous passages in them;--just as whole volumes\nof Wordsworth's poems were formerly neglected or laughed at, solely because\nof some few wilfulnesses, if I may so call them, of that great man--whilst\nat the same time five sixths of his poems would have been admired, and\nindeed popular, if they had appeared without those drawbacks, under the\nname of Byron or Moore or Campbell, or any other of the fashionable\nfavourites of the day. But he has won the battle now, ay! and will wear the\ncrown, whilst English is English.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think there is something very majestic in Gray's Installation Ode; but as\nto the Bard and the rest of his lyrics, I must say I think them frigid and\nartificial. There is more real lyric feeling in Cotton's Ode on Winter.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nLet me borrow Mr. Wordsworth's account of, and quotation from, this poem:--\n\n\"Finally, I will refer to Cotton's 'Ode upon Winter,' an admirable\ncomposition, though stained with some peculiarities of the age in which he\nlived, for a general illustration of the characteristics of Fancy. The\nmiddle part of this ode contains a most lively description of the entrance\nof Winter, with his retinue, as 'a palsied king,' and yet a military\nmonarch, advancing for conquest with his army; the several bodies of which,\nand their arms and equipments, are described with a rapidity of detail, and\na profusion of _fanciful_ comparisons, which indicate, on the part of the\npoet, extreme activity of intellect, and a correspondent hurry of\ndelightful feeling. He retires from the foe into his fortress, where--\n\n                       a magazine\nOf sovereign juice is cellared in;\nLiquor that will the siege maintain\nShould Phoebus ne'er return again.\"\n\nThough myself a water-drinker, I cannot resist the pleasure of transcribing\nwhat follows, as an instance still more happy of Fancy employed in the\ntreatment of feeling than, in its preceding passages, the poem supplies of\nher management of forms.\n\n'Tis that, that gives the Poet rage,\nAnd thaws the gelly'd blood of Age;\nMatures the Young, restores the Old,\nAnd makes the fainting coward bold.\n\nIt lays the careful head to rest,\nCalms palpitations in the breast,\nRenders our lives' misfortune sweet;\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThen let the _chill_ Scirocco blow,\nAnd gird us round with hills of snow;\nOr else go whistle to the shore,\nAnd make the hollow mountains roar:\n\nWhilst we together jovial sit\nCareless, and crowned with mirth and wit;\nWhere, though bleak winds confine us home,\nOur fancies round the world shall roam.\n\nWe'll think of all the friends we know,\nAnd drink to all worth drinking to;\nWhen, having drunk all thine and mine,\nWe rather shall want healths than wine.\n\nBut where friends fail us, we'll supply\nOur friendships with our charity;\nMen that remote in sorrows live\nShall by our lusty brimmers thrive.\n\nWe'll drink the wanting into wealth,\nAnd those that languish into health,\nTh' afflicted into joy, th' opprest\nInto security and rest.\n\nThe worthy in disgrace shall find\nFavour return again more kind,\nAnd in restraint who stifled lie\nShall taste the air of liberty.\n\nThe brave shall triumph in success,\nThe lovers shall have mistresses,\nPoor unregarded virtue, praise,\nAnd the neglected poet, bays.\n\nThus shall our healths do others good,\nWhilst we ourselves do all we would;\nFor, freed from envy and from care,\nWhat would we be but what we are?\n\n_Preface to the editions of Mr. W.'s Poems, in_\n1815 and 1820.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_November_ 1. 1833.\n\nHOMERIC HEROES IN SHAKSPEARE.--DRYDEN.--DR. JOHNSON.--SCOTT'S NOVELS.--\nSCOPE OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nCompare Nestor, Ajax, Achilles, &c. in the Troilus and Cressida of\nShakspeare with their namesakes in the Iliad. The old heroes seem all to\nhave been at school ever since. I scarcely know a more striking instance of\nthe strength and pregnancy of the Gothic mind.\n\nDryden's genius was of that sort which catches fire by its own motion; his\nchariot wheels _get_ hot by driving fast.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDr. Johnson seems to have been really more powerful in discoursing _viv\u00e2\nvoce_ in conversation than with his pen in hand. It seems as if the\nexcitement of company called something like reality and consecutiveness\ninto his reasonings, which in his writings I cannot see. His antitheses are\nalmost always verbal only; and sentence after sentence in the Rambler may\nbe pointed out to which you cannot attach any definite meaning whatever. In\nhis political pamphlets there is more truth of expression than in his other\nworks, for the same reason that his conversation is better than his\nwritings in general. He was more excited and in earnest.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhen I am very ill indeed, I can read Scott's novels, and they are almost\nthe only books I can then _read_. I cannot at such times read the Bible; my\nmind reflects on it, but I can't bear the open page.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nUnless Christianity be viewed and felt in a high and comprehensive way, how\nlarge a portion of our intellectual and moral nature does it leave without\nobject and action!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLet a young man separate I from Me as far as he possibly can, and remove Me\ntill it is almost lost in the remote distance. \"I am me,\" is as bad a fault\nin intellectuals and morals as it is in grammar, whilst none but one--God--\ncan say, \"I am I,\" or \"That I am.\"\n\n\n\n_November_ 9. 1833.\n\nTIMES OF CHARLES I.\n\n\nHow many books are still written and published about Charles the First and\nhis times! Such is the fresh and enduring interest of that grand crisis of\nmorals, religion, and government! But these books are none of them works of\nany genius or imagination; not one of these authors seems to be able to\nthrow himself back into that age; if they did, there would be less praise\nand less blame bestowed on both sides.\n\n\n\n_December_ 21. 1833.\n\nMESSENGER OF THE COVENANT--PROPHECY.--LOGIC OF IDEAS AND OF SYLLOGISMS.\n\n\nWhen I reflect upon the subject of the messenger of the covenant, and\nobserve the distinction taken in the prophets between the teaching and\nsuffering Christ,--the Priest, who was to precede, and the triumphant\nMessiah, the Judge, who was to follow,--and how Jesus always seems to speak\nof the Son of Man in a future sense, and yet always at the same time as\nidentical with himself; I sometimes think that our Lord himself in his\nearthly career was the Messenger; and that the way is _now still preparing_\nfor the great and visible advent of the Messiah of Glory. I mention this\ndoubtingly.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat a beautiful sermon or essay might be written on the growth of\nprophecy!--from the germ, no bigger than a man's hand, in Genesis, till the\ncolumn of cloud gathers size and height and substance, and assumes the\nshape of a perfect man; just like the smoke in the Arabian Nights' tale,\nwhich comes up and at last takes a genie's shape.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1:\nThe passage in Mr. Coleridge's mind was, I suppose, the following:--\"He\n(the fisherman) set it before him, and while he looked upon it attentively,\nthere came out a very thick smoke, which obliged him to retire two or three\npaces from it. The smoke ascended to the clouds, and extending itself along\nthe sea, and upon the shore, formed a great mist, which, we may well\nimagine, did mightily astonish the fisherman. When the smoke was all out of\nthe vessel, it reunited itself, and became a solid body, of which there was\nformed a genie twice as high as the greatest of giants.\" _Story of the\nFisherman_. Ninth Night.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe logic of ideas is to that of syllogisms as the infinitesimal calculus\nto common arithmetic; it proves, but at the same time supersedes.\n\n\n\n_January_ 1. 1834.\n\nLANDOR'S POETRY.--BEAUTY.--CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF WORKS.\n\n\nWhat is it that Mr. Landor wants, to make him a poet? His powers are\ncertainly very considerable, but he seems to be totally deficient in that\nmodifying faculty, which compresses several units into one whole. The truth\nis, he does not possess imagination in its highest form,--that of stamping\n_il pi\u00f9 nell' uno_. Hence his poems, taken as wholes, are unintelligible;\nyou have eminences excessively bright, and all the ground around and\nbetween them in darkness. Besides which, he has never learned, with all his\nenergy, how to write simple and lucid English.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe useful, the agreeable, the beautiful, and the good, are\ndistinguishable. You are wrong in resolving beauty into expression or\ninterest; it is quite distinct; indeed it is opposite, although not\ncontrary. Beauty is an immediate presence, between (_inter_) which and the\nbeholder _nihil est_. It is always one and tranquil; whereas the\ninteresting always disturbs and is disturbed. I exceedingly regret the loss\nof those essays on beauty, which I wrote in a Bristol newspaper. I would\ngive much to recover them.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter all you can say, I still think the chronological order the best for\narranging a poet's works. All your divisions are in particular instances\ninadequate, and they destroy the interest which arises from watching the\nprogress, maturity, and even the decay of genius.\n\n\n\n_January_ 3. 1834.\n\nTOLERATION.--NORWEGIANS.\n\n\nI have known books written on Tolerance, the proper title of which would\nbe--intolerant or intolerable books on tolerance. Should not a man who\nwrites a book expressly to inculcate tolerance learn to treat with respect,\nor at least with indulgence, articles of faith which tens of thousands ten\ntimes told of his fellow-subjects or his fellow-creatures believe with all\ntheir souls, and upon the truth of which they rest their tranquillity in\nthis world, and their hopes of salvation in the next,--those articles being\nat least maintainable against his arguments, and most certainly innocent in\nthemselves?--Is it fitting to run Jesus Christ in a silly parallel with\nSocrates--the Being whom thousand millions of intellectual creatures, of\nwhom I am a humble unit, take to be their Redeemer, with an Athenian\nphilosopher, of whom we should know nothing except through his\nglorification in Plato and Xenophon?--And then to hitch Latimer and\nServetus together! To be sure there was a stake and a fire in each case,\nbut where the rest of the resemblance is I cannot see. What ground is there\nfor throwing the odium of Servetus's death upon Calvin alone?--Why, the\nmild Melancthon wrote to Calvin[1], expressly to testify his concurrence in\nthe act, and no doubt he spoke the sense of the German reformers; the Swiss\nchurches _advised_ the punishment in formal letters, and I rather think\nthere are letters from the English divines, approving Calvin's conduct!--\nBefore a man deals out the slang of the day about the great leaders of the\nReformation, he should learn to throw himself back to the age of the\nReformation, when the two great parties in the church were eagerly on the\nwatch to fasten a charge of heresy on the other. Besides, if ever a poor\nfanatic thrust, himself into the fire, it was Michael Servetus. He was a\nrabid enthusiast, and did every thing he could in the way of insult and\nribaldry to provoke the feeling of the Christian church. He called the\nTrinity _triceps monstrum et Cerberum quendam tripartitum_, and so on.\n\nIndeed, how should the principle of religious toleration have been\nacknowledged at first?--It would require stronger arguments than any which\nI have heard as yet, to prove that men in authority have not a right,\ninvolved in an imperative duty, to deter those under their control from\nteaching or countenancing doctrines which they believe to be damnable, and\neven to punish with death those who violate such prohibition. I am sure\nthat Bellarmine would have had small difficulty in turning Locke round his\nfingers' ends upon this ground. A _right_ to protection I can understand;\nbut a _right_ to toleration seems to me a contradiction in terms. Some\ncriterion must in any case be adopted by the state; otherwise it might be\ncompelled to admit whatever hideous doctrine and practice any man or number\nof men may assert to be his or their religion, and an article of his or\ntheir faith. It was the same Pope who commanded the Romanists of England to\nseparate from the national church, which previously their own consciences\nhad not dictated, nor the decision of any council,--and who also commanded\nthem to rebel against Queen Elizabeth, whom they were bound to obey by the\nlaws of the land; and if the Pope had authority for one, he must have had\nit for the other. The only true argument, as it seems to me, apart from\nChristianity, for a discriminating toleration is, that _it is of no use_ to\nattempt to stop heresy or schism by persecution, unless, perhaps, it be\nconducted upon the plan of direct warfare and massacre. You _cannot_\npreserve men in the faith by such means, though you may stifle for a while\nany open appearance of dissent. The experiment has now been tried, and it\nhas failed; and that is by a great deal the best argument for the\nmagistrate against a repetition of it.\n\nI know this,--that if a parcel of fanatic missionaries were to go to\nNorway, and were to attempt to disturb the fervent and undoubting\nLutheranism of the fine independent inhabitants of the interior of that\ncountry, I should be right glad to hear that the busy fools had been\nquietly shipped off--any where. I don't include the people of the seaports\nin my praise of the Norwegians;--I speak of the agricultural population. If\nthat country could be brought to maintain a million more of inhabitants,\nNorway might defy the world; it would be [Greek: autarhk_as] and\nimpregnable; but it is much under-handed now.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nMelancthon's words are:--\"Tuo judicio prorsus assentior. Affirmo\netiam vestros magistratus juste fecisse quod hominem blasphemum, re\nordine judicata, _interfecerunt_.\" 14th Oct. 1554.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_January_ 12. 1834.\n\nARTICLES OF FAITH.--MODERN QUAKERISM.--DEVOTIONAL\nSPIRIT.--SECTARIANISM.--ORIGEN.\n\n\nI have drawn up four or perhaps five articles of faith, by subscription, or\nrather by assent, to which I think a large comprehension might take place.\nMy articles would exclude Unitarians, and I am sorry to say, members of the\nchurch of Rome, but with this difference--that the exclusion of Unitarians\nwould be necessary and perpetual; that of the members of the church of Rome\ndepending on each individual's own conscience and intellectual light. What\nI mean is this:--that the Romanists hold the faith in Christ,--but\nunhappily they also hold certain opinions, partly ceremonial, partly\ndevotional, partly speculative, which have so fatal a facility of being\ndegraded into base, corrupting, and even idolatrous practices, that if the\nRomanist will make _them_ of the essence of his religion, he must of course\nbe excluded. As to the Quakers, I hardly know what to say. An article on\nthe sacraments would exclude them. My doubt is, whether Baptism and the\nEucharist are properly any _parts_ of Christianity, or not rather\nChristianity itself;--the one, the initial conversion or light,--the other,\nthe sustaining and invigorating life;--both together the [Greek: ph_os ahi\nz_oh_a], which are Christianity. A line can only begin once; hence, there\ncan be no repetition of baptism; but a line may be endlessly prolonged by\ncontinued production; hence the sacrament of love and life lasts for ever.\n\nBut really there is no knowing what the modern Quakers are, or believe,\nexcepting this--that they are altogether degenerated from their ancestors\nof the seventeenth century. I should call modern Quakerism, so far as I\nknow it as a scheme of faith, a Socinian Calvinism. Penn himself was a\nSabellian, and seems to have disbelieved even the historical fact of the\nlife and death of Jesus;--most certainly Jesus of Nazareth was not Penn's\nChrist, if he had any. It is amusing to see the modern Quakers appealing\nnow to history for a confirmation of their tenets and discipline--and by so\ndoing, in effect abandoning the strong hold of their founders. As an\n_imperium in imperio_, I think the original Quakerism a conception worthy\nof Lycurgus. Modern Quakerism is like one of those gigantic trees which are\nseen in the forests of North America,--apparently flourishing, and\npreserving all its greatest stretch and spread of branches; but when you\ncut through an enormously thick and gnarled bark, you find the whole inside\nhollow and rotten. Modern Quakerism, like such a tree, stands upright by\nhelp of its inveterate bark alone. _Bark_ a Quaker, and he is a poor\ncreature.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow much the devotional spirit of the church has suffered by that necessary\nevil, the Reformation, and the sects which have sprung up subsequently to\nit! All our modern prayers seem tongue-tied. We appear to be thinking more\nof avoiding an heretical expression or thought than of opening ourselves to\nGod. We do not pray with that entire, unsuspecting, unfearing, childlike\nprofusion of feeling, which so beautifully shines forth in Jeremy Taylor\nand Andrewes and the writings of some of the older and better saints of the\nRomish church, particularly of that remarkable woman, St. Theresa.[1] And\ncertainly Protestants, in their anxiety to have the historical argument on\ntheir side, have brought down the origin of the Romish errors too late.\nMany of them began, no doubt, in the Apostolic age itself;--I say errors--\nnot heresies, as that dullest of the fathers, Epiphanius, calls them.\nEpiphanius is very long and fierce upon the Ebionites. There may have been\nreal heretics under that name; but I believe that, in the beginning, the\nname was, on account of its Hebrew meaning, given to, or adopted by, some\npoor mistaken men--perhaps of the Nazarene way--who sold all their goods\nand lands, and were then obliged to beg. I think it not improbable that\nBarnabas was one of these chief mendicants; and that the collection made by\nSt. Paul was for them. You should read Rhenferd's account of the early\nheresies. I think he demonstrates about eight of Epiphanius's heretics to\nbe mere nicknames given by the Jews to the Christians. Read \"Hermas, or the\nShepherd,\" of the genuineness of which and of the epistle of Barnabas I\nhave no doubt. It is perfectly orthodox, but full of the most ludicrous\ntricks of gnostic fancy--the wish to find the New Testament in the Old.\nThis gnosis is perceptible in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but kept\nexquisitely within the limit of propriety. In the others it is rampant, and\nmost truly \"puffeth up,\" as St. Paul said of it.\n\nWhat between the sectarians and the political economists, the English are\ndenationalized. England I see as a country, but the English nation seems\nobliterated. What could redintegrate us again? Must it be another threat of\nforeign invasion?\n\n[Footnote 1:\nShe was a native of Avila in Old Castile, and a Carmelite nun. Theresa\nestablished an order which she called the \"Reformed,\" and which became very\npowerful. Her works are divided into ten books, of which her autobiography\nforms a remarkable part. She died in 1582, and was canonised by Gregory XV.\nin 1622--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never can digest the loss of most of Origen's works: he seems to have\nbeen almost the only very great scholar and genius combined amongst the\nearly Fathers. Jerome was very inferior to him.\n\n\n\n_January_ 20. 1834.\n\nSOME MEN LIKE MUSICAL GLASSES.--SUBLIME AND NONSENSE.--ATHEIST.\n\n\nSome men are like musical glasses;--to produce their finest tones, you must\nkeep them wet.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWell! that passage is what I call the sublime dashed to pieces by cutting\ntoo close with the fiery four-in-hand round the corner of nonsense.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow did the Atheist get his idea of that God whom he denies?\n\n\n\n_February_ 22. 1834.\n\nPROOF OF EXISTENCE OF GOD.--KANT'S ATTEMPT.--PLURALITY\nOF WORLDS.\n\n\nAssume the existence of God,--and then the harmony and fitness of the\nphysical creation may be shown to correspond with and support such an\nassumption;--but to set about _proving_ the existence of a God by such\nmeans is a mere circle, a delusion. It can be no proof to a good reasoner,\nunless he violates all syllogistic logic, and presumes his conclusion.\n\nKant once set about proving the existence of God, and a masterly effort it\nwas.* But in his later great work, the \"Critique of the Pure Reason,\" he\nsaw its fallacy, and said of it--that _if_ the existence could he _proved_\nat all, it must be on the grounds indicated by him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI never could feel any force in the arguments for a plurality of worlds, in\nthe common acceptation of that term. A lady once asked me--\"What then could\nbe the intention in creating so many great bodies, so apparently useless to\nus?\" I said--I did not know, except perhaps to make dirt cheap. The vulgar\ninference is _in alio genere_. What in the eye of an intellectual and\nomnipotent Being is the whole sidereal system to the soul of one man for\nwhom Christ died?\n\n\n\n_March_ 1. 1834.\n\nA REASONER.\n\n\nI am by the law of my nature a reasoner. A person who should suppose I\nmeant by that word, an arguer, [1] would not only not understand me, but\nwould understand the contrary of my meaning. I can take no interest\nwhatever in hearing or saying any thing merely as a fact--merely as having\nhappened. It must refer to something within me before I can regard it with\nany curiosity or care. My mind is always energic--I don't mean energetic; I\nrequire in every thing what, for lack of another word, I may call\n_propriety_,--that is, a reason why the thing _is_ at all, and why it is\n_there_ or _then_ rather than elsewhere or at another time.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn his essay, \"_Der einzig m\u00f6gliche Beweisgrund zu einer Demonstration des\nDaseyns Gottes_.\"--\"The only possible argument or ground of proof for a\ndemonstration of the existence of God.\" It was published in 1763; the\n\"Critique\" in 1781.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_March_ 5. 1834.\n\nSHAKSPEARE'S INTELLECTUAL ACTION.--CRABBE AND\nSOUTHEY.--PETER SIMPLE AND TOM CRINGLE'S LOG.\n\n\nShakspeare's intellectual action is wholly unlike that of Ben Jonson or\nBeaumont and Fletcher. The latter see the totality of a sentence or\npassage, and then project it entire. Shakspeare goes on creating, and\nevolving B. out of A., and C. out of B., and so on, just as a serpent\nmoves, which makes a fulcrum of its own body, and seems for ever twisting\nand untwisting its own strength.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think Crabbe and Southey are something alike; but Crabbe's poems are\nfounded on observation and real life--Southey's on fancy and books. In\nfacility they are equal, though Crabbe's English is of course not upon a\nlevel with Southey's, which is next door to faultless. But in Crabbe there\nis an absolute defect of the high imagination; he gives me little or no\npleasure: yet, no doubt, he has much power of a certain kind, and it is\ngood to cultivate, even at some pains, a catholic taste in literature. I\nread all sorts of books with some pleasure except modern sermons and\ntreatises on political economy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have received a great deal of pleasure from some of the modern novels,\nespecially Captain Marryat's \"Peter Simple.\" That book is nearer Smollett\nthan any I remember. And \"Tom Cringle's Log\" in Blackwood is also most\nexcellent.\n\n\n\n_March_ 15. 1834.\n\nCHAUCER.--SHAKSPEARE.--BEN JONSON.--BEAUMONT\nAND FLETCHER.--DANIEL.--MASSINGER.\n\n\nI take unceasing delight in Chaucer. His manly cheerfulness is especially\ndelicious to me in my old age.[1] How exquisitely tender he is, and yet how\nperfectly free from the least touch of sickly melancholy or morbid\ndrooping! The sympathy of the poet with the subjects of his poetry is\nparticularly remarkable in Shakspeare and Chaucer; but what the first\neffects by a strong act of imagination and mental metamorphosis, the last\ndoes without any effort, merely by the inborn kindly joyousness of his\nnature. How well we seem to know Chaucer! How absolutely nothing do we know\nof Shakspeare!\n\nI cannot in the least allow any necessity for Chaucer's poetry, especially\nthe Canterbury Tales, being considered obsolete. Let a few plain rules be\ngiven for sounding the final _\u00e8_ of syllables, and for expressing the\ntermination of such words as _oc\u00eban_, and _nati\u00f6n_, &c. as dissyllables,--\nor let the syllables to be sounded in such cases be marked by a competent\nmetrist. This simple expedient would, with a very few trifling exceptions,\nwhere the errors are inveterate, enable any reader to feel the perfect\nsmoothness and harmony of Chaucer's verse.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nEighteen years before, Mr. Coleridge entertained the same feelings towards\nChaucer:--\"Through all the works of Chaucer there reigns a cheerfulness, a\nmanly hilarity, which makes it almost impossible to doubt a correspondent\nhabit of feeling in the author himself.\" _Biog. Lit_., vol. i. p. 32.--ED.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs to understanding his language, if you read twenty pages with a good\nglossary, you surely can find no further difficulty, even as it is; but I\nshould have no objection to see this done:--Strike out those words which\nare now obsolete, and I will venture to say that I will replace every one\nof them by words still in use out of Chaucer himself, or Gower his\ndisciple. I don't want this myself: I rather like to see the significant\nterms which Chaucer unsuccessfully offered as candidates for admission into\nour language; but surely so very slight a change of the text may well be\npardoned, even by black--_letterati_, for the purpose of restoring so great\na poet to his ancient and most deserved popularity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nShakspeare is of no age. It is idle to endeavour to support his phrases by\nquotations from Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, &c. His language is\nentirely his own, and the younger dramatists imitated him. The construction\nof Shakspeare's sentences, whether in verse or prose, is the necessary and\nhomogeneous vehicle of his peculiar manner of thinking. His is not the\nstyle of the age. More particularly, Shakspeare's blank verse is an\nabsolutely new creation. Read Daniel[1]--the admirable Daniel--in his\n\"Civil Wars,\" and \"Triumphs of Hymen.\"\n\nThe style and language are just such as any very pure and manly writer of\nthe present day--Wordsworth, for example--would use; it seems quite modern\nin comparison with the style of Shakspeare. Ben Jonson's blank verse is\nvery masterly and individual, and perhaps Massinger's is even still nobler.\nIn Beaumont and Fletcher it is constantly slipping into lyricisms.\n\nI believe Shakspeare was not a whit more intelligible in his own day than\nhe is now to an educated man, except for a few local allusions of no\nconsequence. As I said, he is of no age--nor, I may add, of any religion,\nor party, or profession. The body and substance of his works came out of\nthe unfathomable depths of his own oceanic mind: his observation and\nreading, which was considerable, supplied him with the drapery of his\nfigures.[2]\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"This poet's well-merited epithet is that of the '_well-languaged Daniel_;'\nbut, likewise, and by the consent of his contemporaries, no less than of\nall succeeding critics, the 'prosaic Daniel.' Yet those who thus designate\nthis wise and amiable writer, from the frequent incorrespondency of his\ndiction with his metre, in the majority of his compositions, not only deem\nthem valuable and interesting on other accounts, but willingly admit that\nthere are to be found throughout his poems, and especially in his\n_Epistles_ and in his _Hymen's Triumph_, many and exquisite specimens of\nthat style, which, as the neutral ground of prose and verse, is common to\nboth.\"--_Biog. Lit_., vol. ii. p. 82.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\nMr. Coleridge called Shakspeare \"_the myriad-minded man_,\" [Greek: au_az\nmuzioyous]--\" a phrase,\" said he, \"which I have borrowed from a Greek monk,\nwho applies it to a patriarch of Constantinople. I might have said, that I\nhave _reclaimed_, rather than borrowed, it, for it seems to belong to\nShakspeare _de jure singulari, et ex privilegio naturae.\" See Biog. Lit.,\nvol. ii. p. 13.--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs for editing Beaumont and Fletcher, the task would be one _immensi\nlaboris_. The confusion is now so great, the errors so enormous, that the\neditor must use a boldness quite unallowable in any other case. All I can\nsay as to Beaumont and Fletcher is, that I can point out well enough where\nsomething has been lost, and that something so and so was probably in the\noriginal; but the law of Shakspeare's thought and verse is such, that I\nfeel convinced that not only could I detect the spurious, but supply the\ngenuine, word.\n\n\n\n_March_ 20. 1834.\n\n\nLORD BYRON AND H. WALPOLE'S \"MYSTERIOUS MOTHER.\"--LEWIS'S \"JAMAICA\nJOURNAL.\"\n\nLord Byron, as quoted by Lord Dover[1], says, that the \"Mysterious Mother\"\nraises Horace Walpole above every author living in his, Lord Byron's, time.\nUpon which I venture to remark, first, that I do not believe that Lord\nByron spoke sincerely; for I suspect that he made a tacit exception in\nfavour of himself at least;--secondly, that it is a miserable mode of\ncomparison which does not rest on difference of kind. It proceeds of envy\nand malice and detraction to say that A. is higher than B., unless you show\nthat they are _in pari materia_;--thirdly, that the \"Mysterious Mother\" is\nthe most disgusting, vile, detestable composition that ever came from the\nhand of man. No one with a spark of true manliness, of which Horace Walpole\nhad none, could have written it. As to the blank verse, it is indeed better\nthan Rowe's and Thomson's, which was execrably bad:--any approach,\ntherefore, to the manner of the old dramatists was of course an\nimprovement; but the loosest lines in Shirley are superior to Walpole's\nbest.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nIn the memoir prefixed to the correspondence with Sir H. Mann. Lord Byron's\nwords are:--\"He is the _ultimus Romanorum_, the author of the 'Mysterious\nMother,' a tragedy of the highest order, and not a puling love play. He is\nthe father of the first romance, and of the last tragedy, in our language;\nand surely worthy of a higher place than any living author, be he who he\nmay.\"--_Preface to Marino Faliero_. Is not \"Romeo and Juliet\" a love play?\n--But why reason about such insincere, splenetic trash?--ED.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nLewis's \"Jamaica Journal\" is delightful; it is almost the only unaffected\nbook of travels or touring I have read of late years. You have the man\nhimself, and not an inconsiderable man,--certainly a much finer mind than I\nsupposed before from the perusal of his romances, &c. It is by far his best\nwork, and will live and be popular. Those verses on the Hours are very\npretty; but the Isle of Devils is, like his romances,--a fever dream--\nhorrible, without point or terror.\n\n\n\n_April_ 16. 1834.\n\nSICILY.--MALTA--SIR ALEXANDER BALL.\n\n\nI found that every thing in and about Sicily had been exaggerated by\ntravellers, except two things--the folly of the government and the\nwretchedness of the people. _They_ did not admit of exaggeration.\n\nReally you may learn the fundamental principles of political economy in a\nvery compendious way, by taking a short tour through Sicily, and simply\nreversing in your own mind every law, custom, and ordinance you meet with.\nI never was in a country in which every thing proceeding from man was so\nexactly wrong. You have peremptory ordinances _against_ making roads, taxes\non the passage of common vegetables from one miserable village to another,\nand so on.\n\nBy the by, do you know any parallel in modern history to the absurdity of\nour giving a legislative assembly to the Sicilians? It exceeds any thing I\nknow. This precious legislature passed two bills before it was knocked on\nthe head: the first was, to render lands inalienable; and the second, to\ncancel all debts due before the date of the bill.\n\nAnd then consider the gross ignorance and folly of our laying a tax upon\nthe Sicilians! Taxation in its proper sense can only exist where there is a\nfree circulation of capital, labour, and commodities throughout the\ncommunity. But to tax the people in countries like Sicily and Corsica,\nwhere there is no internal communication, is mere robbery and confiscation.\nA crown taken from a Corsican living in the sierras would not get back to\nhim again in ten years.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is interesting to pass from Malta to Sicily--from the highest specimen\nof an inferior race, the Saracenic, to the most degraded class of a\nsuperior race, the European.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo tongue can describe the moral corruption of the Maltese when the island\nwas surrendered to us. There was not a family in it in which a wife or a\ndaughter was not a kept mistress. A marquis of ancient family applied to\nSir Alexander Ball to be appointed his valet. \"My valet!\" said Ball, \"what\ncan you mean, Sir?\" The marquis said, he hoped he should then have had the\nhonour of presenting petitions to his Excellency. \"Oh, that is it, is it!\"\nsaid Sir Alexander: \"my valet, Sir, brushes my clothes, and brings them to\nme. If he dared to meddle with matters of public business, I should kick\nhim down stairs.\"\n\nIn short, Malta was an Augean stable, and Ball had all the inclination to\nbe a Hercules.[1] His task was most difficult, although his qualifications\nwere most remarkable. I remember an English officer of very high rank\nsoliciting him for the renewal of a pension to an abandoned woman who had\nbeen notoriously treacherous to us. That officer had promised the woman as\na matter of course--she having sacrificed her daughter to him. Ball was\ndetermined, as far as he could, to prevent Malta from being made a nest of\nhome patronage. He considered, as was the fact, that there was a contract\nbetween England and the Maltese. Hence the government at home, especially\nDundas, disliked him, and never allowed him any other title than that of\nCivil Commissioner. We have, I believe, nearly succeeded in alienating the\nhearts of the inhabitants from us. Every officer in the island ought to be\na Maltese, except those belonging to the immediate executive: 100_l_. per\nannum to a Maltese, to enable him to keep a gilt carriage, will satisfy him\nwhere an Englishman must have 2000_l_.\n\n[Footnote 1:\nI refer the reader to the five concluding essays of the third volume of the\n\"Friend,\" as a specimen of what Mr. C. might have done as a biographer if\nan irresistible instinct had not devoted him to profounder labours. As a\nsketch--and it pretends to nothing more--is there any thing more perfect in\nour literature than the monument raised in those essays to the memory of\nSir Alexander Ball?--and there are some touches added to the character of\nNelson, which the reader, even of Southey's matchless Life of our hero,\nwill find both new and interesting.--ED.]\n\n\n\n_May_ 1. 1834.\n\nCAMBRIDGE PETITION TO ADMIT DISSENTERS.\n\n\nThere are, to my grief, the names of some men to the Cambridge petition for\nadmission of the Dissenters to the University, whose cheeks I think must\nhave burned with shame at the degrading patronage and befouling eulogies of\nthe democratic press, and at seeing themselves used as the tools of the\nopen and rancorous enemies of the church. How miserable to be held up for\nthe purpose of inflicting insult upon men, whose worth and ability and\nsincerity you well know,--and this by a faction banded together like\nobscene dogs and cats and serpents, against a church which you profoundly\nrevere! The _time_--the _time_--the _occasion_ and the _motive_ ought to\nhave been argument enough, that even if the measure were right or harmless\nin itself, not _now_, nor with such as _these_, was it to be effected!\n\n\n\n_May_ 3. 1834.\n\nCORN LAWS.\n\n\nThose who argue that England may safely depend upon a supply of foreign\ncorn, if it grow none or an insufficient quantity of its own, forget that\nthey are subjugating the necessaries of life itself to the mere luxuries or\ncomforts of society. Is it not certain that the price of corn abroad will\nbe raised upon us as soon as it is once known that we _must_ buy?--and when\nthat fact is known, in what sort of a situation shall we be? Besides this,\nthe argument supposes that agriculture is not a positive good to the\nnation, taken in and by itself, as a mode of existence for the people,\nwhich supposition is false and pernicious; and if we are to become a great\nhorde of manufacturers, shall we not, even more than at present, excite the\nill will of all the manufacturers of other nations? It has been already\nshown, in evidence which is before all the world, that some of our\nmanufacturers have acted upon the accursed principle of deliberately\ninjuring foreign manufactures, if they can, even to the ultimate disgrace\nof the country and loss to themselves.\n\n\n\n_May_ 19. 1834.\n\nCHRISTIAN SABBATH.\n\n\nHow grossly misunderstood the genuine character of the Christian sabbath,\nor Lord's day, seems to be even by the church! To confound it with the\nJewish sabbath, or to rest its observance upon the fourth commandment, is,\nin my judgment, heretical, and would so have been considered in the\nprimitive church. That cessation from labour on the Lord's day could not\nhave been absolutely incumbent on Christians for two centuries after\nChrist, is apparent; because during that period the greater part of the\nChristians were either slaves or in official situations under Pagan masters\nor superiors, and had duties to perform for those who did not recognize the\nday. And we know that St. Paul sent back Onesimus to his master, and told\nevery Christian slave, that, being a Christian, he was free in his mind\nindeed, but still must serve his earthly master, although he might laudably\nseek for his personal freedom also. If the early Christians had refused to\nwork on the Lord's day, rebellion and civil war must have been the\nimmediate consequences. But there is no notice of any such cessation.\n\nThe Jewish sabbath was commemorative of the termination of the great act of\ncreation; it was to record that the world had not been from eternity, nor\nhad arisen as a dream by itself, but that God had created it by distinct\nacts of power, and that he had hallowed the day or season in which he\nrested or desisted from his work. When our Lord arose from the dead, the\nold creation was, as it were, superseded, and the new creation then began;\nand therefore the first day and not the last day, the commencement and not\nthe end, of the work of God was solemnized.\n\nLuther, in speaking of the _good by itself_, and the good _for its\nexpediency alone_, instances the observance of the Christian day of rest,--\na day of repose from manual labour, and of activity in spiritual labour,--a\nday of joy and co-operation in the work of Christ's creation. \"Keep it\nholy\"--says he--\"for its use' sake,--both to body and soul! But if any\nwhere the day is made holy for the mere day's sake,--if any where any one\nsets up its observance upon a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work\non it, to ride on it, to dance on it, to feast on it--to do any thing that\nshall reprove this encroachment on the Christian spirit and liberty.\"\n\nThe early church distinguished the day of Christian rest so strongly from a\nfast, that it was unlawful for a man to bewail even _his own sins_, as such\nonly, on that day. He was to bewail the sins of _all_, and to pray as one\nof the whole of Christ's body.\n\nAnd the English Reformers evidently took the same view of the day as Luther\nand the early church. But, unhappily, our church, in the reigns of James\nand Charles the First, was so identified with the undue advancement of the\nroyal prerogative, that the puritanical Judaizing of the Presbyterians was\nbut too well seconded by the patriots of the nation, in resisting the wise\nefforts of the church to prevent the incipient alteration in the character\nof the day of rest. After the Restoration, the bishops and clergy in\ngeneral adopted the view taken and enforced by their enemies.\n\nBy the by, it is curious to observe, in this semi-infidel and Malthusian\nParliament, how the Sabbatarian spirit unites itself with a rancorous\nhostility to that one institution, which alone, according to reason and\nexperience, can insure the continuance of any general religion at all in\nthe nation at large. Some of these gentlemen, who are for not letting a\npoor labouring man have a dish of baked potatoes on a Sunday, _religionis\ngratia_--(God forgive that audacious blasphemy!)--are foremost among those\nwho seem to live but in vilifying, weakening, and impoverishing the\nnational church. I own my indignation boils over against such contemptible\nfellows.\n\nI sincerely wish to preserve a decent quiet on Sunday. I would prohibit\ncompulsory labour, and put down operas, theatres, &c., for this plain\nreason--that if the rich be allowed to play, the poor will be forced, or,\nwhat comes to the same thing, will be induced, to work. I am not for a\nParis Sunday. But to stop coaches, and let the gentleman's carriage run, is\nmonstrous.\n\n\n\n_May_ 25. 1834.\n\nHIGH PRIZES AND REVENUES OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nYour argument against the high prizes in the church might be put strongly\nthus:--Admit that in the beginning it might have been fairly said, that\nsome eminent rewards ought to be set apart for the purpose of stimulating\nand rewarding transcendant merit; what have you to say now, after centuries\nof experience to the contrary?--_Have_ the high prizes been given to the\nhighest genius, virtue, or learning? Is it not rather the truth, as Jortin\nsaid, that twelve votes in a contested election will do more to make a man\na bishop than an admired commentary on the twelve minor prophets?--To all\nwhich and the like I say again, that you ought not to reason from the\nabuse, which may be rectified, against the inherent uses of the thing.\n_Appoint_ the most deserving--and the prize _will_ answer its purpose. As\nto the bishops' incomes,--in the first place, the net receipts--that which\nthe bishops may spend--have been confessedly exaggerated beyond measure;\nbut, waiving that, and allowing the highest estimate to be correct, I\nshould like to have the disposition of the episcopal revenue in any one\nyear by the late or the present Bishop of Durham, or the present Bishops of\nLondon or Winchester, compared with that of the most benevolent nobleman in\nEngland of any party in politics. I firmly believe that the former give\naway in charity of one kind or another, public, official, or private, three\ntimes as much in proportion as the latter. You may have a hunks or two now\nand then; but so you would much more certainly, if you were to reduce the\nincomes to 2000_l_. per annum. As a body, in my opinion the clergy of\nEngland do in truth act as if their property were impressed with a trust to\nthe utmost extent that can be demanded by those who affect to believe,\nignorantly or not, that lying legend of a tripartite or quadripartite\ndivision of the tithe by law.\n\n\n\n_May 31. 1834._\n\nSIR C. WETHERELL'S SPEECH.--NATIONAL CHURCH.--DISSENTERS.--PAPACY.----\nUNIVERSITIES.\n\n\nI think Sir Charles Wetherell's speech before the Privy Council very\neffective. I doubt if any other lawyer in Westminster Hall could have done\nthe thing so well.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe National Church requires, and is required by, the Christian Church, for\nthe perfection of each. For if there were no national Church, the mere\nspiritual Church would either become, like the Papacy, a dreadful tyranny\nover mind and body;--or else would fall abroad into a multitude of\nenthusiastic sects, as in England in the seventeenth century. It is my deep\nconviction that, in a country of any religion at all, liberty of conscience\ncan only be permanently preserved by means and under the shadow of a\nnational church--a political establishment connected with, but distinct\nfrom, the spiritual Church.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI sometimes hope that the undisguised despotism of temper of the Dissenters\nmay at last awaken a jealousy in the laity of the Church of England. But\nthe apathy and inertness are, I fear, too profound--too providential.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhatever the Papacy may have been on the Continent, it was always an\nunqualified evil to this country. It destroyed what was rising of good, and\nintroduced a thousand evils of its own. The Papacy was and still is\nessentially extra-national;--it affects, _temporally_, to do that which the\nspiritual Church of Christ can alone do--to break down the natural\ndistinctions of nations. Now, as the Roman Papacy is in itself local and\npeculiar, of course this attempt is nothing but a direct attack on the\npolitical independence of other nations.\n\nThe institution of Universities was the single check on the Papacy. The\nPope always hated and maligned the Universities. The old coenobitic\nestablishments of England were converted--perverted, rather--into\nmonasteries and other monking receptacles. You see it was at Oxford that\nWicliffe alone found protection and encouragement.\n\n\n\n_June_ 2. 1834.\n\nSCHILLER'S VERSIFICATION.--GERMAN BLANK VERSE.\n\n\nSchiller's blank verse is bad. He moves in it as a fly in a glue bottle.\nHis thoughts have their connection and variety, it is true, but there is no\nsufficiently corresponding movement in the verse. How different from\nShakspeare's endless rhythms!\n\nThere is a nimiety--a too-muchness--in all Germans. It is the national\nfault. Leasing had the best notion of blank verse. The trochaic termination\nof German words renders blank verse in that language almost impracticable.\nWe have it in our dramatic hendecasyllable; but then we have a power of\ninterweaving the iambic close _ad libitum._\n\n\n\n_June_ 14. 1834.\n\nROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.--DUKE OF WELLINGTON.--CORONATION OATH.\n\n\nThe Roman Catholic Emancipation Act--carried in the violent, and, in fact,\nunprincipled manner it was--was in effect a Surinam toad;--and the Reform\nBill, the Dissenters' admission to the Universities, and the attack on the\nChurch, are so many toadlets, one after another detaching themselves from\ntheir parent brute.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf you say there is nothing in the Romish religion, sincerely felt,\ninconsistent with the duties of citizenship and allegiance to a territorial\nProtestant sovereign, _cadit qu\u00e6stio_. For if _that_ is once admitted,\nthere can be no answer to the argument from numbers. Certainly, if the\nreligion of the majority of the _people_ be innocuous to the interests of\nthe _nation_, the majority have a natural right to be trustees of the\nnationalty--that property which is set apart for the nation's use, and\nrescued from the gripe of private hands. But when I say--_for the nation's\nuse_.--I mean the very reverse of what the Radicals mean. They would\nconvert it to relieve taxation, which I call a private, personal, and\nperishable use. A nation's uses are immortal.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHow lamentable it is to hear the Duke of Wellington expressing himself\ndoubtingly on the abominable sophism that the Coronation Oath only binds\nthe King as the executive power--thereby making a Highgate oath of it. But\nthe Duke is conscious of the ready retort which his language and conduct on\nthe Emancipation Bill afford to his opponents. He is hampered by that\naffair.\n\n\n\n_June_ 20. 1834.\n\nCORN LAWS.--MODERN POLITICAL ECONOMY.\n\n\nIn the argument on the Corn Laws there is a [Greek: metazasis eis allo\ngevos]. It may be admitted that the great principles of commerce require\nthe interchange of commodities to be free; but commerce, which is barter,\nhas no proper range beyond luxuries or conveniences;--it is properly the\ncomplement to the full existence and development of a state. But how can it\nbe shown that the principles applicable to an interchange of conveniences\nor luxuries apply also to an interchange of necessaries? No state can be\nsuch properly, which is not self-subsistent at least; for no state that is\nnot so, is essentially independent. The nation that cannot even exist\nwithout the commodity of another nation, is in effect the slave of that\nother nation. In common times, indeed, pecuniary interest will prevail, and\nprevent a ruinous exercise of the power which the nation supplying the\nnecessary must have over the nation which has only the convenience or\nluxury to return; but such interest, both in individuals and nations, will\nyield to many stronger passions. Is Holland any authority to the contrary?\nIf so, Tyre and Sidon and Carthage were so! Would you put England on a\nfooting with a country, which can be overrun in a campaign, and starved in\na year?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe entire tendency of the modern or Malthusian political economy is to\ndenationalize. It would dig up the charcoal foundations of the temple of\nEphesus to burn as fuel for a steam-engine!\n\n\n\n_June_ 21. 1834.\n\nMr. ----, in his poem, makes trees coeval with Chaos;--which is next door\nto Hans Sachse[1] who, in describing Chaos, said it was so pitchy dark,\nthat even the very _cats_ ran against each other!\n\n[Footnote 1: Hans Sachse was born 1494, and died 1576.--ED],\n\n\n\n_June_ 23. 1834.\n\nSOCINIANISM.--UNITARIANISM.--FANCY AND IMAGINATION.\n\n\nFaustus Socinus worshipped Jesus Christ, and said that God had given him\nthe power of being omnipresent. Davidi, with a little more acuteness, urged\nthat mere audition or creaturely presence could not possibly justify\nworship from men;--that a man, how glorified soever, was no nearer God in\nessence than the vulgarest of the race. Prayer, therefore, was\ninapplicable. And how could a _man_ be a mediator between God and man? How\ncould a _man_ with sins himself offer any compensation for, or expiation\nof, sin, unless the most arbitrary caprice were admitted into the counsels\nof God?--And so, at last, you see, it was discovered by the better\nlogicians amongst the Socinians, that there was no such thing as sin at\nall.\n\nIt is wonderful how any Socinian can read the works of Philo Jud\u00e6us\nwithout some pause of doubt in the truth of his views as to the person of\nChrist. Whether Philo wrote on his own ground as a Jew, or borrowed from\nthe Christians, the testimony as to the then Jewish expectation and\nbelief, is equally strong. You know Philo calls the Logos [Greek: yios\nTheoy], the _Son of God_, and [Greek: agap_athon te non], _beloved Son_.\nHe calls him [Greek: arhchierheus], _high priest_, [Greek: deuterhos\nThehos], _second divinity_, [Greek: ei an Theoy], _image of God_, and\ndescribes him as [Greek: eggutat_o m_adenhos ovtos methorhioy\ndiast_amatos], the _nearest possible to God without any intervening\nseparation_. And there are numerous other remarkable expressions of the\nsame sort.\n\nMy faith is this:--God is the Absolute Will: it is his Name and the meaning\nof it. It is the Hypostasis. As begetting his own Alterity, the Jehovah,\nthe Manifested--He is the Father; but the Love and the Life--the Spirit--\nproceeds from both.\n\nI think Priestley must be considered the author of the modern\nUnitarianism. I owe, under God, my return to the faith, to my having gone\nmuch further than the Unitarians, and so having come round to the other\nside. I can truly say, I never falsified the Scripture. I always told them\nthat their interpretations of the Scripture were intolerable upon any\nprinciples of sound criticism; and that, if they were to offer to construe\nthe will of a neighbour as they did that of their Maker, they would be\nscouted out of society. I said then plainly and openly, that it was clear\nenough that John and Paul were not Unitarians. But at that time I had a\nstrong sense of the repugnancy of the doctrine of vicarious atonement to\nthe moral being, and I thought nothing could counterbalance that. \"What\ncare I,\" I said, \"for the Platonisms of John, or the Rabbinisms of Paul?--\nMy conscience revolts!\" That was the ground of my Unitarianism.\n\nAlways believing in the government of God, I was a fervent Optimist. But as\nI could not but see that the present state of things was not the best, I\nwas necessarily led to look forward to some future state.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nYou may conceive the difference in kind between the Fancy and the\nImagination in this way,--that if the check of the senses and the reason\nwere withdrawn, the first would become delirium, and the last mania. The\n\n\nFancy brings together images which have no connection natural or moral, but\nare yoked together by the poet by means of some accidental coincidence; as\nin the well-known passage in Hudibras:\n\n\"The sun had long since in the lap\nOf Thetis taken out his nap,\nAnd like a lobster boyl'd, the morn\nFrom black to red began to turn.\"[1]\n\nThe Imagination modifies images, and gives unity to variety; it sees all\nthings in one, _il pi\u00f9 nell' uno_. There is the epic imagination, the\nperfection of which is in Milton; and the dramatic, of which Shakspeare is\nthe absolute master. The first gives unity by throwing back into the\ndistance; as after the magnificent approach of the Messiah to battle[2],\nthe poet, by one touch from himself--\n\n--\"far off their coming shone!\"--\n\nmakes the whole one image.\n\nAnd so at the conclusion of the description of the appearance of the\nentranced angels, in which every sort of image from all the regions of\nearth and air is introduced to diversify and illustrate,--the reader is\nbrought back to the single image by--\n\n\"He call'd so loud, that all the hollow deep\nOf Hell resounded.\"[3]\n\nThe dramatic imagination does not throw back, but brings close; it stamps\nall nature with one, and that its own, meaning, as in Lear throughout.\n\n[Footnote 1: Part II. c. 2. v.29.]\n\n[Footnote 2:\n----\"Forth rush'd with whirlwind sound\nThe chariot of Paternal Deity,\nFlashing thick flames, wheel within wheel undrawn,\nItself instinct with spirit, but convoy'd\nBy four cherubic shapes; four faces each\nHad wonderous; as with stars their bodies all\nAnd wings were set with eyes; with eyes the wheels\nOf beryl, and careering fires between;\nOver their heads a crystal firmament,\nWhereon a sapphire throne, inlaid with pure\nAmber, and colours of the showery arch.\nHe, in celestial panoply all arm'd\nOf radiant Urim, work divinely wrought,\nAscended; at his right hand Victory\nSat eagle-wing'd; beside him hung his bow\nAnd quiver, with three-bolted thunder stored;\nAnd from about him fierce effusion roll'd\nOf smoke, and bickering flame, and sparkles dire;\nAttended with ten thousand thousand saints,\nHe onward came; _far off their coming shone;_\nAnd twenty thousand (I their number heard)\nChariots of God, half on each hand, were seen:\nHe on the wings of cherub rode sublime\nOn the crystalline sky, in sapphire throned,\nIllustrious far and wide; but by his own\nFirst seen.\"--P. L. b. vi. v. 749, &c.]\n\n[Footnote 3:\n ----\"and call'd\nHis legions, angel forms, who lay intranced\nThick as autumnal leaves that strow the brooks\nIn Vallombrosa, where th' Etrurian shades,\nHigh over arch'd, embower; or scatter'd sedge\nAfloat, when with fierce winds Orion arm'd\nHath vex'd the Red Sea coast, whose waves o'erthrew\nBusiris, and his Memphian chivalry,\nWhile with perfidious hatred they pursued\nThe sojourners of Goshen, who beheld\nFrom the safe shore their floating carcasses\nAnd broken chariot wheels; so thick bestrewn,\nAbject and lost lay these, covering the flood,\nUnder amazement of their hideous change.\n_He call'd so loud, that all the hollow deep\nOf Hell resounded_.\"--P. L. b. i. v. 300, &c.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the very outset, what are we to think of the soundness of this modern\nsystem of political economy, the direct tendency of every rule of which is\nto denationalize, and to make the love of our country a foolish\nsuperstition?\n\n\n\n_June_ 28. 1834.\n\nMR. COLERIDGE'S SYSTEM.--BIOGRAPHIA LITERAHIA.--DISSENTERS.\n\n\nYou may not understand my system, or any given part of it,--or by a\ndetermined act of wilfulness, you may, even though perceiving a ray of\nlight, reject it in anger and disgust:--but this I will say,--that if you\nonce master it, or any part of it, you cannot hesitate to acknowledge it as\nthe truth. You cannot be sceptical about it.\n\nThe metaphysical disquisition at the end of the first volume of the\n\"Biographia Literaria\" is unformed and immature;--it contains the fragments\nof the truth, but it is not fully thought out. It is wonderful to myself to\nthink how infinitely more profound my views now are, and yet how much\nclearer they are withal. The circle is completing; the idea is coming round\nto, and to be, the common sense.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe generation of the modern worldly Dissenter was thus: Presbyterian,\nArian, Socinian, and last, Unitarian.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIs it not most extraordinary to see the Dissenters calling themselves the\ndescendants of the old Nonconformists, and yet clamouring for a divorce of\nChurch and State? Why--Baxter, and the other great leaders, would have\nthought a man an atheist who had proposed such a thing. _They_ were rather\nfor merging the State _in_ the Church. But these our modern gentlemen, who\nare blinded by political passion, give the kiss of alliance to the harlot\nof Rome, and walk arm in arm with those who deny the God that redeemed\nthem, if so they may but wreak their insane antipathies on the National\nChurch! Well! I suppose they have counted the cost, and know what it is\nthey would have, and can keep.\n\n\n\n_July_ 5. 1834.\n\nLORD BROOKE.--BARROW AND DRYDEN.--PETER WILKINS AND STOTHARD.--FIELDING AND\nRICHARDSON.--BISHOP SANDFORD.--ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION.\n\n\nI do not remember a more beautiful piece of prose in English than the\nconsolation addressed by Lord Brooke (Fulke Greville) to a lady of quality\non certain conjugal infelicities. The diction is such that it might have\nbeen written now, if we could find any one combining so thoughtful a head\nwith so tender a heart and so exquisite a taste.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBarrow often debased his language merely to evidence his loyalty. It was,\nindeed, no easy task for a man of so much genius, and such a precise\nmathematical mode of thinking, to adopt even for a moment the slang of\nL'Estrange and Tom Brown; but he succeeded in doing so sometimes. With the\nexception of such parts, Barrow must be considered as closing the first\ngreat period of the English language. Dryden began the second. Of course\nthere are numerous subdivisions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPeter Wilkins is to my mind a work of uncommon beauty; and yet Stothard's\nillustrations have _added_ beauties to it. If it were not for a certain\ntendency to affectation, scarcely any praise could be too high for\nStothard's designs. They give me great pleasure. I believe that Robinson\nCrusoe and Peter Wilkins could only have been written by islanders. No\ncontinentalist could have conceived either tale. Davis's story is an\nimitation of Peter Wilkins; but there are many beautiful things in it;\nespecially his finding his wife crouching by the fireside--she having, in\nhis absence, plucked out all her feathers--to be like him!\n\nIt would require a very peculiar genius to add another tale, _ejusdem\ngeneris_, to Robinson Crusoe and Peter Wilkins. I once projected such a\nthing; but the difficulty of a pre-occupied ground stopped me. Perhaps La\nMotte Fouqu\u00e9 might effect something; but I should fear that neither he, nor\nany other German, could entirely understand what may be called the \"_desert\nisland_\" feeling. I would try the marvellous line of Peter Wilkins, if I\nattempted it, rather than the _real_ fiction of Robinson Crusoe.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat a master of composition Fielding was! Upon my word, I think the\nOedipus Tyrannus, the Alchemist, and Tom Jones the three most perfect plots\never planned. And how charming, how wholesome, Fielding always is! To take\nhim up after Richardson, is like emerging from a sick room heated by\nstoves, into an open lawn, on a breezy day in May.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI have been very deeply interested in the account of Bishop Sandford's\nlife, published by his son. He seems to have been a thorough gentleman upon\nthe model of St. Paul, whose manners were the finest of any man's upon\nrecord.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI think I could have conformed to the then dominant Church before the\nReformation. The errors existed, but they had not been riveted into\nperemptory articles of faith before the Council of Trent. If a Romanist\nwere to ask me the question put to Sir Henry Wotton, [1]I should content\nmyself by answering, that I could not exactly say when my religion, as he\nwas pleased to call it, began--but that it was certainly some sixty or\nseventy years before _his_, at all events--which began at the Council of\nTrent.\n\n[Footnote 1:\n\"Having, at his being in Rome, made acquaintance with a pleasant priest,\nwho invited him, one evening, to hear their vesper music at church; the\npriest, seeing Sir Henry stand obscurely in a corner, sends to him by a boy\nof the choir this question, writ in a small piece of paper;--'Where was\nyour religion to be found before Luther?' To which question Sir Henry\npresently underwrit;--'My religion was to be found then, where yours is not\nto be found now--in the written word of God.'\"--_Isaak Walton's Life of Sir\nHenry Wotton_.]\n\n\n_July_ 10. 1834.\n\n_EUTHANASIA._\n\nI am, dying, but without expectation of a speedy release. Is it not strange\nthat very recently by-gone images, and scenes of early life, have stolen\ninto my mind, like breezes blown from the spice-islands of Youth and Hope--\nthose twin realities of this phantom world! I do not add Love,--for what is\nLove but Youth and Hope embracing, and so seen as _one?_ I say _realities_;\nfor reality is a thing of degrees, from the Iliad to a dream; [Greek: *ai\ng_or t onar e Di s esti]. Yet, in a strict sense, reality is not\npredicable at all of aught below Heaven. \"Es enim _in coelis_, Pater\nnoster, qui tu vere _es!_\"  Hooker wished to live to finish his\nEcclesiastical Polity;--so I own I wish life and strength had been spared\nto me to complete my Philosophy. For, as God hears me, the originating,\ncontinuing, and sustaining wish and design in my heart were to exalt the\nglory of his name; and, which is the same thing in other words, to promote\nthe improvement of mankind. But _visum aliter Deo_, and his will be done.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n** This note may well finish the present specimens. What followed was for\nthe memory of private friends only. Mr. Coleridge was then extremely ill;\nbut certainly did not believe his end to be quite so near at hand as it\nwas.--ED.\n\nThe following Recollections of Mr. Coleridge, written in May, 1811, have\nbeen also communicated to me by my brother, Mr. Justice Coleridge:--\n\n\"20_th April_, 1811, _at Richmond_.\n\n\"We got on politics, and he related some curious facts of the Prince and\nPerceval. Then, adverting to the present state of affairs in Portugal, he\nsaid that he rejoiced not so much in the mere favourable turn, as in the\nend that must now be put to the base reign of opinion respecting the\nsuperiority and invincible skill of the French generals. Brave as Sir John\nMoore was, he thought him deficient in that greater and more essential\nmanliness of soul which should have made him not hold his enemy in such\nfearful respect, and which should have taught him to care less for the\nopinion of the world at home.\n\n\"We then got, I know not how, to German topics. He said that the language\nof their literature was entirely factitious, and had been formed by Luther\nfrom the two dialects, High and Low German; that he had made it,\ngrammatically, most correct, more so, perhaps, than any other language; it\nwas equal to the Greek, except in harmony and sweetness. And yet the\nGermans themselves thought it sweet;--Klopstock had repeated to him an ode\nof his own to prove it, and really had deceived himself, by the force of\nassociation, into a belief that the harsh sounds, conveying, indeed, or\nbeing significant of, sweet images or thoughts, were themselves sweet. Mr.\nC. was asked what he thought of Klopstock. He answered, that his fame was\nrapidly declining in Germany; that an Englishman might form a correct\nnotion of him by uniting the moral epigram of Young, the bombast of Hervey,\nand the minute description of Richardson. As to sublimity, he had, with all\nGermans, one rule for producing it;--it was, to take something very great,\nand make it very small in comparison with that which you wish to elevate.\nThus, for example, Klopstock says,--'As the gardener goes forth, and\nscatters from his basket seed into the garden; so does the Creator scatter\nworlds with his right hand.' Here _worlds_, a large object, are made small\nin the hands of the Creator; consequently, the Creator is very great. In\nshort, the Germans were not a poetical nation in the very highest sense.\nWieland was their best poet: his subject was bad, and his thoughts often\nimpure; but his language was rich and harmonious, and his fancy luxuriant.\nSotheby's translation had not at all caught the manner of the original. But\nthe Germans were good metaphysicians and critics: they criticised on\nprinciples previously laid down; thus, though they might be wrong, they\nwere in no danger of being self-contradictory, which was too often the case\nwith English critics.\n\n\"Young, he said, was not a poet to be read through at once. His love of\npoint and wit had often put an end to his pathos and sublimity; but there\nwere parts in him which must be immortal. He (Mr. C.) loved to read a page\nof Young, and walk out to think of him.\n\n\"Returning to the Germans, he said that the state of their religion, when\nhe was in Germany, was really shocking. He had never met one clergyman a\nChristian; and he found professors in the universities lecturing against\nthe most material points in the Gospel. He instanced, I think, Paulus,\nwhose lectures he had attended. The object was to resolve the miracles into\nnatural operations; and such a disposition evinced was the best road to\npreferment. He severely censured Mr. Taylor's book, in which the principles\nof Paulus were explained and insisted on with much gratuitous indelicacy.\nHe then entered into the question of Socinianism, and noticed, as I\nrecollect, the passage in the Old Testament; 'The people bowed their faces,\nand _worshipped_ God and the king.' He said, that all worship implied the\npresence of the object worshipped: the people worshipped, bowing to the\nsensuous presence of the one, and the conceived omnipresence of the other.\nHe talked of his having constantly to defend the Church against the\nSocinian Bishop of Llandaff, Watson. The subject then varied to Roman\nCatholicism, and he gave us an account of a controversy he had had with a\nvery sensible priest in Sicily on the worship of saints. He had driven the\npriest from one post to another, till the latter took up the ground, that\nthough the saints were not omnipresent, yet God, who was so, imparted to\nthem the prayers offered up, and then they used their interference with Him\nto grant them. 'That is, father, (said C. in reply)--excuse my seeming\nlevity, for I mean no impiety--that is; I have a deaf and dumb wife, who\nyet understands me, and I her, by signs. You have a favour to ask of me,\nand want my wife's interference; so you communicate your request to me, who\nimpart it to her, and she, by signs back again, begs me to grant it.' The\ngood priest laughed, and said, '_Populus milt decipi, et decipiatur!_'\n\n\"We then got upon the Oxford controversy, and he was decidedly of opinion\nthat there could be no doubt of Copleston's complete victory. He thought\nthe Review had chosen its points of attack ill, as there must doubtless be\nin every institution so old much to reprehend and carp at. On the other\nhand, he thought that Copleston had not been so severe or hard upon them as\nhe might have been; but he admired the critical part of his work, which he\nthought very highly valuable, independently of the controversy. He wished\nsome portion of mathematics was more essential to a degree at Oxford, as he\nthought a gentleman's education incomplete without it, and had himself\nfound the necessity of getting up a little, when he could ill spare the\ntime. He every day more and more lamented his neglect of them when at\nCambridge,\n\n\"Then glancing off to Aristotle, he gave a very high character of him. He\nsaid that Bacon objected to Aristotle the grossness of his examples, and\nDavy now did precisely the same to Bacon: both were wrong; for each of\nthose philosophers wished to confine the attention of the mind in their\nworks to the _form_ of reasoning only, by which other truths might be\nestablished or elicited, and therefore the most trite and common-place\nexamples were in fact the best. He said that during a long confinement to\nhis room, he had taken up the Schoolmen, and was astonished at the immense\nlearning and acute knowledge displayed by them; that there was scarcely any\nthing which modern philosophers had proudly brought forward as their own,\nwhich might not be found clearly and systematically laid down by them in\nsome or other of their writings. Locke had sneered at the Schoolmen\nunfairly, and had raised a foolish laugh against them by citations from\ntheir _Quid libet_ questions, which were discussed on the eyes of holydays,\nand in which the greatest latitude was allowed, being considered mere\nexercises of ingenuity. We had ridiculed their _quiddities_, and why? Had\nwe not borrowed their _quantity_ and their _quality_, and why then reject\ntheir _quiddity_, when every schoolboy in logic must know, that of every\nthing may be asked, _Quantum est? Quale est?_ and _Quid est?_ the last\nbringing you to the most material of all points, its individual being. He\nafterwards stated, that in a History of Speculative Philosophy which he was\nendeavouring to prepare for publication, he had proved, and to the\nsatisfaction of Sir James Mackintosh, that there was nothing in Locke which\nhis best admirers most admired, that might not be found more clearly and\nbetter laid down in Descartes or the old Schoolmen; not that he was himself\nan implicit disciple of Descartes, though he thought that Descartes had\nbeen much misinterpreted.\n\n\"When we got on the subject of poetry and Southey, he gave us a critique of\nthe Curse of Kehama, the fault of which he thought consisted in the\nassociation of a plot and a machinery so very wild with feelings so sober\nand tender: but he gave the poem high commendation, admired the art\ndisplayed in the employment of the Hindu monstrosities, and begged us to\nobserve the noble feeling excited of the superiority of virtue over vice;\nthat Kehama went on, from the beginning to the end of the poem, increasing\nin power, whilst Kailyal gradually lost her hopes and her protectors; and\nyet by the time we got to the end, we had arrived at an utter contempt and\neven carelessness of the power of evil, as exemplified in the almighty\nRajah, and felt a complete confidence in the safety of the unprotected\nvirtue of the maiden. This he thought the very great merit of the poem.\n\n\"When we walked home with him to the inn, he got on the subject of the\nEnglish Essay for the year at Oxford, and thought some consideration of the\ncorruption of language should he introduced into it.\n\n[Footnote: On Etymology.]\nIt originated, he thought, in a desire to abbreviate all expression as much\nas possible; and no doubt, if in one word, without violating idiom, I can\nexpress what others have done in more, and yet be as fully and easily\nunderstood, I have manifestly made an improvement; but if, on the other\nhand, it becomes harder, and takes more time to comprehend a thought or\nimage put in one word by Apuleius than when expressed in a whole sentence\nby Cicero, the saving is merely of pen and ink, and the alteration is\nevidently a corruption.\"\n\n\n\n_\"April_ 21.--Richmond._\n\n\"Before breakfast we went into Mr. May's delightful book-room, where he was\nagain silent in admiration of the prospect. After breakfast, we walked to\nchurch. He seemed full of calm piety, and said he always felt the most\ndelightful sensations in a Sunday church-yard,--that it struck him as if\nGod had given to man fifty-two springs in every year. After the service, he\nwas vehement against the sermon, as common-place, and invidious in its tone\ntowards the poor. Then he gave many texts from the lessons and gospel of\nthe day, as affording fit subjects for discourses. He ridiculed the\nabsurdity of refusing to believe every thing that you could not understand;\nand mentioned a rebuke of Dr. Parr's to a man of the name of Frith, and\nthat of another clergyman to a young man, who said he would believe nothing\nwhich he could not understand:--'Then, young man, your creed will be the\nshortest of any man's I know.'\n\n\"As we walked up Mr. Cambridge's meadows towards Twickenham, he criticised\nJohnson and Gray as poets, and did not seem to allow them high merit. The\nexcellence of verse, he said, was to be untranslatable into any other words\nwithout detriment to the beauty of the passage;--the position of a single\nword could not be altered in Milton without injury. Gray's\npersonifications, he said, were mere printer's devils' personifications--\npersons with a capital letter, abstract qualities with a small one. He\nthought Collins had more genius than Gray, who was a singular instance of a\nman of taste, poetic feeling, and fancy, without imagination. He contrasted\nDryden's opening of the 10th satire of Juvenal with Johnson's:--\n\n  \"'Let observation, with extensive view,\n  Survey mankind from Ganges to Peru.'\n\nwhich was as much as to say,--\n\n  \"'Let observation with extensive observation observe mankind.'\n\n\"After dinner he told us a humorous story of his enthusiastic fondness for\nQuakerism, when he was at Cambridge, and his attending one of their\nmeetings, which had entirely cured him. When the little children came in,\nhe was in raptures with them, and descanted upon the delightful mode of\ntreating them now, in comparison with what he had experienced in childhood.\nHe lamented the haughtiness with which Englishmen treated all foreigners\nabroad, and the facility with which our government had always given up any\npeople which had allied itself to us, at the end of a war; and he\nparticularly remarked upon our abandonment of Minorca. These two things, he\nsaid, made us universally disliked on the Continent; though, as a people,\nmost highly respected. He thought a war with America inevitable; and\nexpressed his opinion, that the United States were unfortunate in the\nprematureness of their separation from this country, before they had in\nthemselves the materials of moral society--before they had a gentry and a\nlearned class,--the former looking backwards, and giving the sense of\nstability--the latter looking forwards, and regulating the feelings of the\npeople.\n\n\"Afterwards, in the drawing-room, he sat down by Professor Rigaud, with\nwhom he entered into a discussion of Kant's System of Metaphysics. The\nlittle knots of the company were speedily silent: Mr. C.'s voice grew\nlouder; and abstruse as the subject was, yet his language was so ready, so\nenergetic, and so eloquent, and his illustrations so very neat and\napposite, that the ladies even paid him the most solicitous and respectful\nattention. They were really entertained with Kant's Metaphysics! At last I\ntook one of them, a very sweet singer, to the piano-forte; and, when there\nwas a pause, she began an Italian air. She was anxious to please him, and\nhe was enraptured. His frame quivered with emotion, and there was a titter\nof uncommon delight on his countenance. When it was over, he praised the\nsinger warmly, and prayed she might finish those strains in heaven!\n\n\"This is nearly all, except some anecdotes, which I recollect of our\nmeeting with this most interesting, most wonderful man. Some of his topics\nand arguments I have enumerated; but the connection and the words are lost.\nAnd nothing that I can say can give any notion of his eloquence and\nmanner,--of the hold which he soon got on his audience--of the variety of\nhis stores of information--or, finally, of the artlessness of his habits,\nor the modesty and temper with which he listened to, and answered\narguments, contradictory to his own.\"--J. T. C.\n\n\n\nThe following address has been printed before; but it cannot be too widely\ncirculated, and it will form an appropriate conclusion to this volume.\n\n_To Adam Steinmetz K----._\n\nMY DEAR GODCHILD,\n\nI offer up the same fervent prayer for you now, as I did kneeling before\nthe altar, when you were baptized into Christ, and solemnly received as a\nliving member of his spiritual body, the Church.\n\nYears must pass before you will be able to read, with an understanding\nheart, what I now write. But I trust that the all-gracious God, the Father\nof our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Mercies, who, by his only-begotten\nSon, (all mercies in one sovereign mercy!) has redeemed you from the evil\nground, and willed you to be born out of darkness, but into light--out of\ndeath, but into life--out of sin, but into righteousness, even into the\nLord our Righteousness; I trust that He will graciously hear the prayers of\nyour dear parents, and be with you as the spirit of health and growth in\nbody and mind!\n\nMy dear Godchild!--You received from Christ's minister at the baptismal\nfont, as your Christian name, the name of a most dear friend of your\nfather's, and who was to me even as a son, the late Adam Steinmetz, whose\nfervent aspiration, and ever-paramount aim, even from early youth, was to\nbe a Christian in thought, word, and deed--in will, mind, and affections.\n\nI too, your Godfather, have known what the enjoyments and advantages of\nthis life are, and what the more refined pleasures which learning and\nintellectual power can bestow; and with all the experience that more than\nthreescore years can give, I now, on the eve of my departure, declare to\nyou, (and earnestly pray that you may hereafter live and act on the\nconviction,) that health is a great blessing,--competence obtained by\nhonourable industry a great blessing,--and a great blessing it is to have\nkind, faithful, and loving friends and relatives; but that the greatest of\nall blessings, as it is the most ennobling of all privileges, is to be\nindeed a Christian. But I have been likewise, through a large portion of my\nlater life, a sufferer, sorely afflicted with bodily pains, languors, and\nmanifold infirmities; and, for the last three or four years, have, with few\nand brief intervals, been confined to a sick-room, and, at this moment, in\ngreat weakness and heaviness, write from a sick-bed, hopeless of a\nrecovery, yet without prospect of a speedy removal; and I, thus on the very\nbrink of the grave, solemnly bear witness to you, that the Almighty\nRedeemer, most gracious in his promises to them that truly seek him, is\nfaithful to perform what he hath promised, and has preserved, under all my\npains and infirmities, the inward peace that passeth all understanding,\nwith the supporting assurance of a reconciled God, who will not withdraw\nhis spirit from me in the conflict, and in his own time will deliver me\nfrom the Evil One!\n\nO, my dear Godchild! eminently blessed are those who begin early to seek,\nfear, and love their God, trusting wholly in the righteousness and\nmediation of their Lord, Redeemer, Saviour, and everlasting High Priest,\nJesus Christ!\n\nO preserve this as a legacy and bequest from your unseen Godfather and\nfriend,\n\nS. T. COLERIDGE.\n\n_Grove, Highgate, July_ 13. 1834.\n\nHe died on the 25th day of the same month.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nA.\n\nAbraham.\nAbuse, Eloquence of.\nAcoustics.\nActs, Origin of.\nAdiaphori.\nAdvocate, Duties and Needs of an.\nAeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.\nAlchemy.\nAll and the Whole.\nAmerica, United States of.\nAmerican Union, Northern and Southern States of the.\nAmericans, the.\nAnarchy, Mental.\nAncient Mariner.\nAnimal Being, Scale of.\nAnt and Bee.\nArchitecture, Gothic.\nAriosto and Tasso.\nAristotle.\nArmy and Navy, House of Commons appointing the Officers of the.\nArticle, Ninth.\nAsgill.\n-----and Defoe.\nAstrology.\nAtheist.\nAutumn Day.\n\nB.\n\nBacon.\nBall, Sir Alexander.\nBaptismal Service.\nBarrow and Dryden.\n_Bartram's Travels_.\nBaxter.\nBeaumont and Fletcher.\n----'s Dramas.\nBeauty.\nBehmen, Jacob.\nBentley.\nBerkeley.\nBertram, Character of.\nBestial Theory.\nBible, Study of the.\n----, Version of the.\nBiblical Commentators.\nBiographia Literaria.\nBitters and Tonics.\nBlack.\nBlack, Colonel.\nBlumenbach and Kant's Races.\nBooks of Moses, Genuineness of.\nBoswell.\nBourrienne.\nBowyer.\nBritish Schoolmen.\nBrooke, Lord.\nBrown and Darwin.\nBull and Waterland.\nBurke.\nBurnet.\nBuonaparte.\nByron, Lord.\n----and H. Walpole's \"Mysterious Mother.\"\n----, his Versification, and Don Juan.\n\nC.\n\nCaesarean Operation.\nCambridge Petition to admit Dissenters.\nCanning.\nCapital.\nCatholicity.\nCavalier Slang.\nCharacter, Differences of.\nCharles I.\nChaucer.\nChildren, Gracefulness of,\nChillingworth,\nChrist, Divinity of,\nChrist's Hospital,\nChristian Sabbath,\nChristianity,\n----, Scope of,\nChurch,\n----, High Prizes and Revenues of\n  the,\n----, National,\n----of England,\n----of Rome,\nChurchmen,\nChurch Singing,\nCitizens and Christians,\nClaudian,\nClergy, Celibacy of the,\nColeridge's (Mr.) System,\nColonization,\nColours,\n----, Non-perception of,\nCommons, House of,\n----, the Reformed House of,\nCompounds, Latin,\nConsolation in Distress,\nConstantine,\nConstitution, English,\nCorn Laws,\nCoronation Oaths,\nCrabbe and Southey,\nCramp, Charm for,\nCraniology,\nCrisis,\n\n\nD.\n\nDancing, English and Greek,\nDaniel,\nDavy, Sir H.,\nDemocracy,\n----, with Slavery,\nDevotional Spirit,\nDe vi Minimorum,\nDictation and Inspiration,\nDiction of the Old and New Testament Version,\nDiplomatists, modern,\nDisfranchisement,\nDissenters,\nDiversions of Purley,\nDivines, old,\nDivinity,\nDobrizhoffer,\nDog,\nDon Quixote,\nDouw's (Gerard) \"Schoolmaster,\" and Titian's \"Venus,\"\nDramatists, the Old,\nDrayton and Daniel,\nDreams,\n----and Ghosts, Difference between Stories of,\nDryden,\n----and Pope,\nDual, Neuter plural, and Verb singular,\n\n\nE.\n\nEducation,\nEgyptian Antiquaries,\nEldon's (Lord) Doctrine as to Grammar Schools,\nElectricity,\nElegy,\nEnergy of Man and other Animals,\nEngland,\n----and Holland,\nEnglish and German,\nEnvy,\nEpidemic Disease,\nEpistles to the Ephesians and Colossians,\n----to the Hebrews,\n----to the Romans,\nErasmus,\nEtymology of the final _Ive_,\nEucharist, the,\nEuripides,\nEuthanasia,\nEvangelicals, Mock,\n\n\nF.\n\nFaith,\n----, Articles of,\n----and Belief\nFantasy and Imagination,\nFatalism and Providence,\nFathers, the,\nFaust,\nFees, Barristers' and Physicians',\nFielding and Richardson,\nFine Arts, Patronage of the,\nFlaccus, Valerius,\nFlogging,\nFood,\nFox and Pitt,\nFrench, the,\n----Gendarmerie,\n----Hereditary Peerage, Abolition of the,\n\n\nG.\n\nGalileo, Newton, Kepler, Bacon,\nGalvanism,\nGas, Hydro-carbonic,\nGender of the Sun in German,\nGenius,\nGenius, Criterion of.\n----, Feminine.\n----, Metaphysical.\n----of the Spanish and Italians.\nGerman.\n----Blank Verse.\n----and English.\nGhosts,\nGibbon,\nGifford's Massier,\nGiotto,\nGnosis,\nGod, Proof of Existence of,\n----'s Providence,\nGoethe,\nGood and the True, the,\nGovernment,\nGrammar,\nGray and Cotton\nGreat Minds androgynous,\n----Poets, good Men,\nGreek,\n----, Italian, and English, pure Ages of,\n----Accent and Quantity,\n----Drama,\n----Particles,\nGrey, Earl,\n\nH.\n\nHacket's Life of Archbishop Williams,\nHahnemann,\nHall, Captain B.,\n----and the Americans,\nHamlet,\nHampden's Speech,\nHarmony,\nHeat,\nHebrew,\nHermesianax,\nHerodotus,\nHesiod,\nHieronimo,\nHistory,\n----, Jewish,\nHobbism,\nHolland and Belgium,\n----and the Dutch,\nHomer,\nHomeric Heroes in Shakspeare,\nHooker,\nHooker and Bull,\nHorner,\nHumour and Genius,\nHypothesis,\nHysteria,\n\nI.\n\nIapetic and Semitic,\nIdeal Tory and Whig,\nIdeal Truths, Reverence for,\nIdeas,\nImitation and Copy,\nIncarnation,\nInherited Disease,\nInsects,\nInterest, Monied,\nInvestigation, Methods of,\nIreland, Union with,\nIrish Church,\nIron,\nIrving,\nIsaac,\nItaly, Roman Conquest of,\n\nJ.\n\nJacob,\nJacobins,\nJames I,\nJerusalem, Destruction of,\nJews,\n----, Conversion of the,\n----, Division of the Scripture,\n----, in Poland,\nJob, Book of,\nJohnson, Dr.,\n----, his Political Pamphlets,\n----, the Whig,\nJonson, Ben,\nJunius,\nJuries,\n\nK.\n\nKant's Attempt,\nKant's Races of Mankind,\nKean,\nKeats,\nKeenness and Subtlety,\nKemble, John,\nKepler,\nKnowledge,\nKotzebue,\n\nL.\n\nLakes, Scotch and English,\nLamb, C.,\nLand and Money,\nLandholders, Duty of,\nLandor's (W. S.) Poetry,\nLaud,\nLaughter, Farce and Tragedy,\nLavacrum Pallados,\nLegislation, Iniquitous,\nLeo X.,\nLewis's Jamaica Journal,\nLife, Constitutional and Functional,\nLiturgy, English,\nLogic,\n----, Character of the Age for,\nLogic of Ideas and of Syllogisms.\nLogos, the.\n\"Lord, the,\" in the English Version of the Psalms.\nLove.\n----and Friendship opposed.\nLove's Labour Lost.\nLucan.\nLuther.\nLyell's Geology.\n\nM.\n\nMachinery.\nMackintosh, Sir James.\nMadness.\nMagnetism.\nMalta.\nMan cannot be stationary.\n----Fall of.\n----'s Freedom.\nMandeville's Fable of the Bees.\nManners under Edward III., Richard II., and Henry VIII.\nMarriage.\n----Parental Control in.\n----of Cousins.\nMartin.\nMason's Poetry.\nMassier.\nMaterialism.\nMathews.\nMeasure for Measure.\nMedicine.\nMedicines, Specific.\nMen.\nMessenger of the Covenant.\nMessiah.\nMetre, Modern.\nMiguel, Dom, and Dom Pedro.\nMilesian Tales.\nMilton.\n----and Sydney.\n----'s disregard of Painting.\n----'s Egotism.\n----'s Latin Poems.\nMinisters and the Reform Bill.\nMonarchy or Democracy, Prospect of.\nMonro, Sir T.\nMosaic Miracles.\n----Prophecies.\nMotives and Impulses.\nMusic.\n----, Ear and Taste for, different.\nMusical Glasses, some Men like.\n\nN.\n\nNapier.\nNational Colonial Character and Naval Discipline.\n----Debt.\nNations, Characteristic Temperament of.\nNegro Emancipation.\nNervous Weakness.\nNew Testament Canon.\nNewton.\nNitrous Oxide.\nNominalists and Realists.\nNorthern and Southern States.\nNorwegians.\n\nO.\n\nOath, Coronation.\nOaths.\nObstruction.\nOrigen.\nOthello, Character of.\n\nP.\n\nPainting.\nPantheism.\n----and Idolatry.\nPapacy.\n----, the, and the Reformation.\n----and the Schoolmen.\nParadise Lost.\nPark, Professor.\nParliamentary Privilege.\nParty Spirit.\nPenal Code in Ireland.\nPenn, Granville, and the Deluge.\nPentameter, Greek and Latin.\nPermanency and Progression of Nations.\nPersius.\nPersons and Things.\nPeter Simple, and Tom Cringle's Log.\nPhantom Portrait.\nPhilanthropists.\nPhilosopher's ordinary Language.\nPhilosophy, Greek.\n----, Moral.\n----, Mr. Coleridge's System of.\n----of young Men of the present Day.\nPictures.\nPilgrim's Progress.\nPirates.\nPlants.\nPlato.\n----and Xenophon.\nPlotinus.\nPoem, Epic.\nPoetic Promise.\nPoetical Filter.\nPoetry.\n----, Persian and Arabic.\nPoison.\nPolarity, Moral Law of.\nPolitical Action, the two Modes of.\nPolitical Economy, Modern.\nPolonius.\nPoor Laws.\nPopedom.\nPrayer.\nPreaching extempore.\nPresbyterians, Independents, and Bishops.\nPrinciple, Greatest Happiness.\nPrinciples and Facts.\n----and Maxims.\nProfessions and Trades.\nPropertius.\nProperty Tax.\nProphecies of the Old Testament.\nProphecy.\nProse and Poetry.\n----and Verse.\nPrudentius.\nPsalms, Translation of the.\nPuritans and Cavaliers.\n----and Jacobins.\n\nQ.\n\nQuacks.\nQuakerism, Modern.\nQuakers.\nQuarantine.\n\nR.\n\nRabelais.\n----and Luther.\nRaffles, Sir S.\nRainbow.\nReason and Understanding.\nReasoner, a.\nRedemption.\nReform of the House of Commons.\n----Bill.\n----, Conduct of Ministers on the.\nReformation.\n----, English.\nReligion.\nReligion gentilizes.\n----of the Greeks.\n-----, Roman Catholic.\n-----, Romish\nRepresentation, Popular.\n----, Direct.\nRestoration.\nReview, Principles of a.\nRevolution.\n----, Belgian.\n----, French.\n----, Intellectual.\nRhenferd.\nRoman Conquest.\n----Empire. Key to the Decline of the.\n----Mind.\n----Catholics.\n----Catholic Emancipation.\nRosetti on Dante.\n\nS.\n\nSallust.\nSandford, Bishop.\nSanskrit.\nSarpi, Paul.\nScanderbeg.\nScarlett, Sir J.\nSchemes, Spinozistic and Hebrew.\nSchiller.\n----'s Robbers.\n----'s Versification.\nSchmidt.\nSchools, Infant.\n----, Public.\nScotch and English.\n----Kirk and Irving.\n----Novels.\nScott, Michael.\n----and Coleridge.\n----'s Novels.\nSectarianism.\nSeneca.\nShakspeare.\n----, _in Minimis_.\n----'s Intellectual Action.\n----'s Sonnets.\nSicily.\nSidney, Sir P.\nSin and Sins.\nSmith, Robert.\nSociety, best State of.\nSocinianism.\nSocrates.\nSolomon.\nSophocles.\nSouthey.\n----'s Life of Bunyan.\nSpeech, Parts of.\nSpenser.\nSpinosa.\nSpurzheim.\nSpurzheim and Craniology.\nSt. John.\n----'s Gospel.\n----, Chap. xix. Ver. 11.\n----, Chap. iii. Ver. 4.\nSt. Paul's Melita.\nState.\n----, a.\n----, Idea of a.\nStatesmen.\nStatius.\nSteinmetz.\nStella.\nSterne.\nStyle.\n----, Algernon Sydney's.\n----, Modern.\nSublime and Nonsense.\nSublimity.\nSuffiction.\nSuperstition of Maltese, Sicilians, and Italians.\nSwift.\nSympathy of old Greek and Latin with English, 168.\n\nT.\n\nTalent and Genius.\nTalented.\nTaxation.\nTaylor, Jeremy.\nTennyson's Poems.\nTertullian.\nThelwall.\nTheory.\nTheta.\nThings are finding their Level.\nThomas \u00e0 Becket.\nThucydides.\n----and Tacitus.\nTibullus.\nTimes of Charles I.\nToleration.\nTooke, Horne.\nTravels, Modern.\nTrinity, the.\nTruths and Maxims.\n\nU.\n\nUnderstanding, the.\nUndine.\nUnitarianism.\nUniversal Suffrage.\nUniversities.\n\nV.\n\nValcknaer.\nVarro.\nVico.\nVirgil.\nVirtue and Liberty.\nVon Humboldt, Baron.\nVote, Right of Women to.\nVowels and Consonants.\nVox Populi, Vox Dei.\n\nW.\n\nWalkerite Creed.\nWar.\n----, Civil, of the Seventeenth Century.\nWedded Love in Shakspeare and his contemporary Dramatists.\nWellington, Duke of.\nWetherell's (Sir Charles) Speech.\nWhigs, Conduct of the.\nWicliffe.\nWilkins, Peter, and Stothard.\nWilliam III.\nWilson.\nWit and Madness.\nWitch of Endor.\nWomen, Characterlessness of.\n----, Old.\n----and Men.\nWords and Names of Things.\nWordsworth.\nWorks, Chronological Arrangement of.\nWorking to better one's condition.\nWorlds, Plurality of.\n\nZ.\n\nZendavesta.\n\nTHE END.","title":"Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":108749}